Good and Bad


PDA






shootingthebreeze
January 28, 2014, 11:19 PM
Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it.
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper.

If you enjoyed reading about "Good and Bad" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ngnrd
January 28, 2014, 11:31 PM
You can surrender your rights if you want. Do not surrender mine.

chris in va
January 28, 2014, 11:55 PM
Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed.

Who is to decide what person is 'sane' enough to own a firearm? What threshold would you accept? If you take antidepressants, does that disqualify you? How about past alcohol abuse? If you see a therapist on a regular basis, you can't defend yourself?

NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check.

While it seems good on paper, an in-state sale has been the norm for a very long time with very few problems. I'll admit, sometimes selling to a stranger can be a bit unnerving but I always ask to see their DL and CWP. Dragging your dad down to the gun store for a NICS check is a bit of a stretch.

As for the history change, the guns of the 1700's would equate to a modern sporting rifle of today. They were cutting edge and fully modern for their time. Also understand there were very few people populating what we now call the US. Human interaction outside the major population centers was much less common. Now we are jammed in here like sardines, good, bad and ugly.

My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.

Good. States need to regulate their own firearm laws, not the Federal government. Arizona fully endorses open carry. Other states do not. Would you have .gov forcing all states to pick one or the other? I think you don't understand the reason we have individual states and not one giant country.

As a final thought, understand something. If you let .gov enact one or two laws on a federal level, they will not stop there.

TennJed
January 29, 2014, 12:06 AM
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
.

This is where I disagree. The tsunami of bills and laws is not due to the lack of electing firearm controls, it is due to a lack of understanding on how violence and crime works. On how guns themselves work. No amount of new laws will stop the tsunami. They will keep coming, because the people writing them do not understand enough on the subject

Drail
January 29, 2014, 12:08 AM
Wow. Some people just don't get it.:scrutiny: I'm with ngnrd. Feel free surrender your rights. If they want mine they may come and take them. There are some things I am willing to compromise on. The entire Bill of Rights ain't one of them.

PabloJ
January 29, 2014, 12:11 AM
Irresponsible gun owners are another nail in coffin of ALL gun owners.

gym
January 29, 2014, 12:18 AM
Wrong, you don't negotiate your rights. That would be the beginning of the end. It would be like someone telling you where you could live and what church you can go to. It's no ones business. Listen to someone who has been watching the climate change since I was a boy. there are so many people who are pro gun now, that guns and shooting has become like Bowling was in the 60's. it can't go backwards anymore, they can try to slow it down, but people want their guns, and they won't take no for an answer.
Set aside all the noise and in a few years there will be a federal interstate carry permit.
It just makes sense, with budget cuts and LEOs starting to climb on board now, everyone who wants a gun will have one.
Ten years ago I never would have said that , and 45 years ago when I started carrying, no one even spoke about guns. They would have been shunned by most of their neighbors. Now my female neighbors all pack a pistol, even the Catholic school marm 2 houses down. we are not going back anymore, look at the amount of new weapons coming out, even what the ATF has allowed to pass as legal, that never would have happened years ago.
The same way kids don't take the family car and go to the bar, is the same way they will not touch the guns that their parents own, that starts at home with a strong family unit, has nothing to do with the guns.

tyeo098
January 29, 2014, 12:20 AM
Its that time of the month again when one of these threads pops up.

Like the others said, feel free to not exercise your rights. They are there whether you use them or not.
Don't say you speak for others though.

.338-06
January 29, 2014, 12:28 AM
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.


We already have this. Where I live we can own machine guns and such if we jump through the Federal hoops. And what is this registration thing you speak of? People think the laws of the state they live in are the norm and are the same everywhere. They are not.

Mike J
January 29, 2014, 12:36 AM
Gun control laws do nothing to stop crime. The reason politicians push for gun control is 2 fold one so they can appear to be doing something, two because it gives .gov more control. I should not surrender my rights so someone else can feel safe. Firearms owners in this country have already lost enough. It is my opinion that we should in fact be repealing the gun laws already on the books. GCA of 1968 would be a good place to start.

As far as the states having a patchwork of laws. That is how it is now & how I hope it stays. The less say so the federal government has in our firearms rights the better off we are.

TJ AK-74
January 29, 2014, 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by shootingthebreeze Words in bold are my responses.

Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. That's how it should be...Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence. Right, they couldn't imagine gang violence... no gangs of native American indians ever attacked anyone back then...
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good (seriously?), and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. OMG, that is such a great idea! Of course a convicted felon who wants to buy a gun to kill someone with (which is already illegal) is gonna be stopped by this, because we all know that these types of people would never steal a gun right? Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Because they shouldn't need a background check for a new gun either... Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period. Here's a better idea: DON"T REQUIRE REGISTRATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! Ever think of that???
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls Huh? We don't have ENOUGH federal gun laws already???at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people. The wrong people are already denied.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, (Agree up to this point) some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level. More like brains, not "lack of will".
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. Oh no, if we don't give up our rights NOW, we Might need to give some up later? How about not giving any up and taking some of the lost rights back? We are seeing this today. Where?If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. FalseI'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. What does that have to do with this or anything? I don't care what you do for a living as long as you don't advocate to restrict my rights...Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Or kids need to learn proper use of guns, i.e not shooting themselves or other kids with them.Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. Already been addressed.One firearm death is one too many. Yeah, and 1 of any other kind of death is 1 too many. What are you gonna do about it? Outlaw dying???
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. Agree there.But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Yeah, so?Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it. Right, gotta weaken the 2nd Amendment to strengthen it...?
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. I can believe it, I just think it's insane... (BTW,does that mean you should be a "prohibited person" because I may think that you could be insane? Or should some bureaucrat decide?)A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper. Your friends can "feel" however they want to. If instead they would actually use logic instead of feelings, maybe they would see how pathetic these added restrictions would be...

horsemen61
January 29, 2014, 12:54 AM
You want your rights controlled I believe Great Britain to be the place for you as for me I am going to fight this legislation as long as I can still breathe

HammsBeer
January 29, 2014, 01:01 AM
If you don't think there's enough laws on guns, feel free to move to an even more restrictive state like CA or NY and sacrifice more of your freedom.

But don't speak for the rest of us, we are fighting back these waves of errosive bills and laws against our constitutionally protected rights, and retoric like your's does us no good.

Twiki357
January 29, 2014, 01:08 AM
No, universal background checks are not good. If for no other reason, it can not be totally enforced without registration of all firearms… A predecessor to confiscation.

Federal firearm legislation will have no effect on preventing a patchwork of state laws unless it preempted and abolished all state laws, which would be totally unconstitutional, not that very many legislators pay any attention to the Constitution any more. If you want some examples, just look at the ridiculous restrictions in California, New York and Illinois compared to Arizona, Texas and Florida, to mention just a few.

“But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out.” Is it really? From what I’m seeing, the risk to our freedom may be a little different, but is just as great today as it was then.

You may be willing to give away your Constitutional rights. That’s your right to do so. But, I AM NOT willing to willingly forfeit the few rights that our self-absorbed legislators have not yet taken from me!

horsemen61
January 29, 2014, 01:09 AM
Bet this one gets locked

JRH6856
January 29, 2014, 01:12 AM
Reasonable gun control is a 6" group at 50 yards with a handgun.

Read my sig line

captain awesome
January 29, 2014, 01:15 AM
Shooting the breeze,
If we allow any more gun laws soon you won't be shooting anything. Not even the breeze.

murder was around back when our founding fathers created the constitution. So was senseless violence. It has always been and always will be. If you think of the huge number of people that live in this country, and then look at how many of the tradjedys like Sandy Hook we have, there AREN'T that many. They are a very minor problem. Heart disease and cancer are much worse problems. Outlaw those. It makes just as much sense as gun laws. If you outlaw it, it can't happen right?

Skribs
January 29, 2014, 01:30 AM
I take offense to the idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it used to. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give us a tool to use to stand up against the government in the event that our government (including military and federal police agencies) against us. If you think that does not apply in today's world, look at places torn by civil war across the pond. People can still stand up to the government.

Regarding "today's world", would you agree that because we didn't have the Internet back in 1789, the Internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment provisions for Free Speech? Would you agree that religions created after the Bill of Rights was signed should not be covered under Freedom of Religion? These rights are not based on 18th century technology, but rather built on what should be fundamentally human rights.

ngnrd
January 29, 2014, 01:47 AM
... States need to regulate their own firearm laws, not the Federal government. Arizona fully endorses open carry. Other states do not. Would you have .gov forcing all states to pick one or the other? I think you don't understand the reason we have individual states and not one giant country. ...[/B]

I agree with most of what you said. But, I have to disagree with this idea. States should independently regulate the right to keep and bear arms as much as they should independently regulate slavery, segregation, or religious freedom. The free and legal exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights should not depend on where you live.

JRH6856
January 29, 2014, 02:30 AM
Because the 14th amendment recognized the citizens of the several states as citizens of the United States, with certain rights, privileges, and immunities, the Bill of Rights—which originally protected both the states and their individual citizens for overreach and oppression by the national government—incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states and places the national government in the position of protector of individual rights against abuse by the state governments.

IOW, it should be the duty of the federal government to enforce the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment, and force the noncompliant states such as New York, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. to honor that right to the fullest extent. The states should have no more authority to enact restrictive firearms laws than they do to to enact laws supporting slavery or segregation.

The vehicle for for this enforcemtn has been and still is the federal courts, not Congress or the Executive. And the courts are where we have won our most important recent battles. We need to stay focuses on the national scene because Congress and especially the President can alter the make up of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the key. If we lose that, we are in for a ride in a proverbial handbasket.

BigBore44
January 29, 2014, 02:40 AM
Come on guys. Don't be so hard on him. How about we all agree to give up all our guns for one year. Then the next year we'll petition .gov to give them back. That's reasonable.....right? I mean .gov has always been in the habit of giving power to the citizens. Not taking it away. You guys are just being mean. Now stop it or I'm gonna tell!!!

OP, I would very much like to respond to everything I read in your post. My problem is I don't believe I could do so without getting an (more like several) infractions. So I'm just gonna say this.....

IGNORANT. UTTERLY and COMPLETELY IGNORANT. Please do us and your friends a favor. Don't spend the money to move out of the country or to Cali, or NY. Instead, educate yourself on the facts of firearms registration in other countries and the effects thereof. Also research what the 2A was actually intended to do. Hint: It wasn't to give the government more power. So every infringement on the 2A (opposite of "shall not be infringed") is one step closer to a totalitarian government. There, I helped a little.

chris in va
January 29, 2014, 05:23 AM
Guys, no need to bash, he just needs a bit of education. Push people like this away and we're labeled...something not very nice.

caribou
January 29, 2014, 06:12 AM
When our Founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they knew full well of gangs, oprression, NO Police force, wildeness living and equality, all the things that add up to a Man not only doing for himself , unhinderd, but growing in every way when allowed to live free and with a solid backing of Law, hence our Right and duty to bear arms, as free citizens, and to remain free.

They knew very well what war and genocide were, and practised it.



They knew first hand and practised Slavery, so prehaps we cant imagine the stress's and mental tribulations of a society totally lacking in policing, basic medical care, basic food distribution, security in old age or freedom and equality or blind Justice.

This is a country, as patriots, we love it, and inthe same manner, no love ever need be wasted on Govornment.

We can change that every 2-4 years

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 08:01 AM
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.

Ahh, the fallacy of "extraordinary times." It is often hard for people to see beyond the few short years they themselves have been paying attention to the goings-on of the world and understand that a) there is really nothing new under the sun, and b) the founding fathers certainly DID write a governing document for the ages -- to stand in all times and under all conditions.

Because they understood history far better than you do. They were students on a level that is hard to adequately describe to most folks today. They were educated in history, philosophy, comparative government, civics, and the good and bad of mankind from a very young age and continued that constant study and exploration through the founding of our nation and beyond. These were men who founded universities and, not to put too fine a point on it, donated THE Library of Congress from their own private collections. Stop and think about that before you elevate yourself to imagine that you understand the world better than they.

So no, they didn't see an assault rifle. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with military weapons could do, and chose to write the 2nd Amendment.

No, they didn't see a television or the internet. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with the ability to communicate to large numbers of people could do, and chose to write the 1st Amendment.

Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. Baloney.

A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
So you are for universal background checks, AND are actually FOR registration of firearms?

Let me put this clearly: I am 100% opposed to these things in every way. It seems clear that you must have seen every argument against them and failed to understand their importance. If that's going to be your direction, I wish you failure in your efforts, and know that I'll fight you and those you support every single inch of the way. "May your chains set lightly..." as one of those old dead guys you know better than once said.

The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second AmendmentSimply a self-refuting idea. The best way to stop endangering the 2nd Amendment is to repeal GCA'68, and then the NFA'34. That would get us back to 'sanity' because it would put an end to the "object control" distraction that blinds so many to the real problems and solutions of crime and danger in society.

... these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.Whoops. There it is again. A LAW that "denys" a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one. We don't usually pretend around here that someone who would HURT or KILL another human being (and what other reason would we have for denying someone a firearm?) will not commit a grave malum in se crime because they're stymied by a minor malum prohibidum crime?

"I won't steal a car, because to do so I'd have to steal a set of keys, and that's bad"...? :scrutiny:

"I won't KILL someone because having a gun would be against the law..." Doesn't make sense, when you actually stop and think, does it?

My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level. We already have a quilt-like pattern of laws -- that's the whole federal system, don't you know? -- and the rather unsurprising fact is that the VAST majority of states have decided to have NOTHING to do with the silliness you're advocating.

You seem to be saying, "enact some bad laws, federally, or we'll end up with some bad laws in some states." That hardly makes sense, and isn't a strategy that's worth a plug nickle. Fight. That's the strategy. Fight here, fight there, fight everywhere, and make ... EVERY SINGLE INCH they take cost them dearly in political blood and tears. Just like 2013 saw after Newtown. Let them fight as hard as they can and dash their political capital on the rocks of our resolve and strength! Yeah, they'll make a little splash here or there (NY, CT, CO) but it will cost them their (political) life's blood to buy those tiny victories, and they'll inevitably lose some of that ground they bled for (again, see CO).

Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today. Horse pucky. Resistance to change NATIONALLY will be backed up by resistance to change in the STATES. That's what we're seeing now. Yeah, of course they'll TRY. That's only to be expected. And every time they FAIL, they crawl away weaker than before. Gun control is a losing proposition and its old guard is dying and retiring and fading away. They're spending the last gasps of life on fruitless attempts. It is a HAPPY thing to watch.

If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year.The rates of gun accidents already the lowest ever continue to fall despite more guns being in private hands than at any point in the history of any nation. This is a red herring.

Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.Oh, jeeez. The "one is to many" tripe? You never took a statistics class, did you?

A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.Oh, we can believe it. :rolleyes: You or your pals used to say, "what honest man needs a handgun, or an AR-15?" And, "As long as they don't take my duck gun..." The friend of my enemy is WHO, again?

Ks5shooter
January 29, 2014, 08:23 AM
Shootinthebreeze :what::rolleyes:

jimbo555
January 29, 2014, 08:23 AM
Criminals will get guns no matter what laws you pass. Only the law abiding follow the law.

DT Guy
January 29, 2014, 08:29 AM
I disagree with everything you've said.

When 'compromise' starts to mean 'give us background checks, and we'll reopen the NFA', I'll consider compromise.

As far as the founding fathers not foreseeing changes in weaponry, I disagree; they were certainly aware weapons HAD changed in the past, and therefore could foresee that they WOULD change in the future.

Truthfully, I consider 'gun owners' such as yourself somewhat despicable; your premise essentially is, "We should make it harder to get guns as long as I can get the ones I want." Folks who turn on their fellows in a struggle ignore either getting ignored, or worse.

Mike J
January 29, 2014, 08:39 AM
shootingthebreeze- Go to www.guncite.com & do some reading. Educate yourself about this matter. Digest all information you can get about RKBA from legitimate sources (not the kellerman study as it is bs) & then come back & discuss this with us. There is a literal ton of information out there if you will go to the trouble to educate yourself beyond emotion & opinion.

Yo Mama
January 29, 2014, 08:42 AM
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.


No, they never had any violent acts back then did they? And mental illness??? It's pretty well documented that the history of mental illness is as long as human kind has been on the planet.

Thinking you live in a special or unique time is false.

Listen to the posts here, it's why you're interacting on the forum. Instead you have consistently just said you're for gun control, but not willing to have a debate.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 09:17 AM
Criminals will get guns no matter what laws you pass. Only the law abiding follow the law.

If following the law now actually meant not selling guns to criminals, you would have a point. But in many states, you can follow the law and still sell guns to criminals.

Make it a law that it is 100% illegal to sell a gun to someone with a felony conviction in all circumstances and criminals will have fewer sources of guns because, as you said, the law abiding follow the law.

The current system relies on criminals to follow the law (something they don't do, by their nature). I want a system that does not rely on criminal's sense of honor to keep them from buying a gun.

rdhood
January 29, 2014, 09:22 AM
“But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out.”

What makes you think that? There have always been thugs. There have ALWAYS been groups of men who would band together in order to rape, rob, murder. From prehistoric times, to the bandits of the middle ages, to the streets of Chicago in the 1930s to the streets of Chicago in the 2014s. There has always been a need to protect oneself against criminal forces. With respect to the INDIVIDUAL facing these criminal forces, what has changed? Hint: NOTHING. They need the access to self defense today as much as ever. And YOU, OP, are the one proposing to take that right away. And if that is not what you are proposing, tell us exactly what you WILL accept for a 110lb woman in a questionable urban environment? Hiding in fear is not an acceptable answer.

Mike J
January 29, 2014, 09:27 AM
Pizzapinochle-It is already against the law to sell a gun to a convicted felon. It has been ever since GCA of 1968. That does not stop anything. Firearms are stolen & then transferred between criminals. There are ways of getting things whether it is legal or not, always have been-always will be. The level of ignorance & naivete being displayed by some posters in this thread is frightening.

holdencm9
January 29, 2014, 09:30 AM
"The founding fathers couldn't have imagined more advanced weaponry"...this is one that bothers me so much. Primarily because it doesn't matter; as others have pointed out, they couldn't have imagined the internet (as in, REALLY couldn't have imagined it!) but the 1st Amendment still applies to blogs. But the secondary reason is because weapons that were more advanced than "your typical musket" already existed! Just take a look at the volley gun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun)

As Sam also noted, the founding fathers were all brilliant students of history, and also visionaries. My guess is they could have seen something like the volley gun and imagined similar multi-shot weapons in a shoulder-fired platform. It's not that great a leap.

As for UBC...yeah they won't work without registration, which is why most pro-gun people don't support them, but you appear to support registration so it is really pointless to argue about UBC with you. I will just point out that UBC brings up a lot of non-gun issues related to private property and what we are permitting the government to sink their teeth into.

Ryanxia
January 29, 2014, 09:38 AM
Shootingthebreeze - happy you're getting to have this discussion now? There seems to be plenty of folks who will debate with you over the 'Good and Bad' of gun control.
In this setting you can have an exchange of information on your topics and thought processes without taking over other threads.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 09:38 AM
Pizzapinochle-It is already against the law to sell a gun to a convicted felon. It has been ever since GCA of 1968.

No, that is wrong. It is illegal to KNOWINGLY sell to a convicted felon.

I can sell to a felon at no risk of being charged with a crime as long as the police/prosecutor can't PROVE that I KNEW they were a convicted felon.

In my state, all I have to check is a DL for residency. They can be a felon of any sort and it is perfectly legal for me to sell to them as long as I don't find out they are a felon before I sell them the gun.

holdencm9
January 29, 2014, 09:39 AM
I can sell to a felon at no risk of being charged with a crime as long as the police/prosecutor can't PROVE that I KNEW they were a convicted felon.

I believe many states add in "or have reason to suspect" or some such thing. So if the buyer even hints that he might be a prohibited person, you could get in trouble.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 09:43 AM
So, in my state, steps for a convicted felon to get a gun:

1. Have cash
2. Go on armslist and find any of the 1000s of guns for sale
3. Arrange a meeting via email
4. Don't be a complete blooming idiot at the transaction and say "By the way, I spent 6 years in the pen for armed robbery."

I think not telling someone you are a felon is a pretty easy step to get a handle on.

And good luck finding a cop who will investigate or a prosecutor who will go to trial with "The buyer might have said something that could have hinted at maybe being a prohibited person" as their evidence.

Dain Bramage
January 29, 2014, 09:44 AM
I vote Sam1911 write the state of the union response. ;)

Grassman
January 29, 2014, 09:48 AM
Dang!:banghead::banghead: It's thinking like this that has been slowly chipping away our rights since the 60's. It's gotta stop.

Mike J
January 29, 2014, 09:49 AM
Universal Background checks lead to registration. Registration leads to confiscation. There have been many cases in the last 100 years where confiscation was followed by genocide. Of course I am sure there were many that lived in Germany in the 1930's that thought that couldn't happen there.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 09:55 AM
So, in my state, steps for a convicted felon to get a gun:

1. Have cash
2. Go on armslist and find any of the 1000s of guns for sale
3. Arrange a meeting via email
4. Don't be a complete blooming idiot at the transaction and say "By the way, I spent 6 years in the pen for armed robbery."

I think not telling someone you are a felon is a pretty easy step to get a handle on.

According to the DoJ's crime statistics - how often does this actually occur? After all, if you're gonna try to solve societal issues, you ought to at least quantify the magnitude and impact of the issue so that you can prioritize your actions accordingly.

Here's a couple of hints. According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm. Moreover, folk that *were* already felons in fact got their guns from acquaintences or via theft moreso than via any other means. The fact is that face to face sales and gun show sales represented a very small percentage of all means of acquiring a gun by a prohibited person.

And as an aside, in the 'let's face reality' section of the discussion, the fact is that most 'prior felon' uses of firearms in the, um, Continued Execution Of Mischief falls into the gang-on-gang category. It's not common nor particlarly successful for most gang members to show up at a private FTF sale or gun show and successfully buy a gun. Interesting, I've seen it tried here in Dallas, and it didn't work out so well for the 'friends of the gang bangers' who tried it.

But back to my point - adding restrictions to solve a problem that statistically isn't a problem doesn't make much 'common sense' after all, and just winds up being another piece of feel-good legislation that does nothing to cure the root causes of gun-related violence. Calling something 'common sense' doesn't actually make it so.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 09:56 AM
Universal Background checks lead to registration. Registration leads to confiscation. There have been many cases in the last 100 years where confiscation was followed by genocide. Of course I am sure there were many that lived in Germany in the 1930's that thought that couldn't happen there.

I HATE that argument, acting like general gun control had anything to do with the holocaust.

Gun restrictions for German Citizens were RELAXED under Hitler. German citizens could, and did, own guns. That was never the problem.

The problem was that Hitler convinced the whole country that one minority group (the Jews) were the source of all their problems and if they would just get rid of that minority group, things would be better. Convinced of this, the whole country stripped that one minority group of ALL their rights. Yes, guns were included in that, but it wasn't a general gun control campaign for all of Germany. German citizens had guns and could have resisted the holocaust. They chose not to.

Frankly, I have heard more arguments from pro-gun people that line up with the Nazi/Hitler rhetoric than I have from anti-gun people.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 09:58 AM
So, in my state, steps for a convicted felon to get a gun:Yup. Or steal one, or buy one off the black market. Of course, the black market for guns could be tightly regulated out of existence, just like they did with alcohol and pot.


...Ok, ok, seriously

Truth is, making laws that make it a crime to UN-knowingly sell to a prohibited person pretty much kills the private sales market for firearms. You either have to accept that any transaction could put you behind bars, or you have to run every buyer through the state system to prove their uprighteousness. It's an ugly thing, and an end run around the problem of making every transaction part of the federal process, trackable and traceable.

hso
January 29, 2014, 10:05 AM
For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.

The oft repeated, but logically inconsistent and categorically inaccurate, idea that the well educated products of the Enlightenment and Intellectual Revolution, lively philosophical and political thought discussions, many of which were as familiar with if not actual innovators of radical advances in technology, and who envisioned and made real a democratic republic in an age of Kings, Emperors, and Potentates were so intellectually limited that they couldn't see past the state of the world at the time of the penning of the Constitution simply doesn't make any sense. They knew the good and evil of men, living in times where "justice" was meted out by the individual, mob, or Tyrant and whole communities and classes lived in poverty and squalor so they had no illusions about human and societies nature. They were familiar with repeating firearms and students of DaVinci and other intellectual innovators. They were all too familiar with mass murder as families and communities were killed over an argument or in the name of a cause (or have we forgotten histories recounting villages and town people in America slaughtered or congregations herded into their places of worship to be burned?).

You can not use the "in olden days" argument and be taken seriously.

Almost as bad as the refusal of people on both sides of this debate to simply look at the statistics instead of individual cases. Over and over again at THR we point to the FBI's Uniform Crime reports and the DATA that proves that we are collectively and individually safer from violent crime now than this generation has ever been. RATES are relevant, not the hyped individual events. Even mass shootings are no greater (and a mass shooting according to the FBI and not the Brady Campaign is mass murder of four or more persons during an event with no cooling-off period between the murders typically occurring in one location where one or more people kill several others) in frequency. Criminologists have pointed out that they're cyclical and that even then represent too small a percentage of deaths in a given year to shift the continually downward trend in the rate of murders and violent crime (as last year failed to do).

If the authors of the Constitution and Amendments were involved with leading this nation for most of the first hundred years they saw even more changes in social, political, and technological developments than at the time of their penning of the Constitution and BOR by the time the 1800s came about. Yet they saw no need to make the changes being advocated by many.

If the rate of violent crime and murder has been dropping since the 1980s and mass shootings don't impact that rate of decline in violence, what are the motives for treating 90% of our citizens as if they were criminals?

If states with liberal laws on firearms ownership imposing few if any restrictions beyond the federal restrictions have low violent crime and murder rates while others with conservative laws restricting firearms ownership have higher rates of violent crime and murder it seems to anyone that understands statistics and has a passing understanding of sociology and criminology that the device isn't the key to pushing the rate of crime low and the far more difficult issues of poverty, education, opportunity, freedom that sociologists and criminologists point to are what needs to be addressed.

Mike J
January 29, 2014, 10:08 AM
Germany is not the only place this has happened.

To be honest though I personally believe GCA of 1968 should be repealed as I believe it is just a means to stripping people of their citizenship rights. I know plenty of people who are convicted felons that have been out of trouble & leading productive lives for 20 years. I have known people that were never convicted of anything that I would not consider trustworthy.
If someone has paid there debt to society & is trusted enough to be turned loose they should have their rights. If they can not be trusted to function in society we need to either keep them locked down or eliminate them not turn them loose.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:09 AM
According to the DoJ's crime statistics - how often does this actually occur? After all, if you're gonna try to solve societal issues, you ought to at least quantify the magnitude and impact of the issue so that you can prioritize your actions accordingly.


DOJ does not track firearms sales. Thanks to pro-gun efforts, very little meaningful research has ever been done tracking the pipeline of guns to criminals. The NRA has done a pretty good job of making sure no one knows for sure how guns get to criminals.


Here's a couple of hints. According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm.

Would like to see a link to that finding, I’ll wait to respond until I know exactly what you are saying.


Moreover, folk that *were* already felons in fact got their guns from acquaintences or via theft moreso than via any other means. The fact is that face to face sales and gun show sales represented a very small percentage of all means of acquiring a gun by a prohibited person.

Acquaintances: So, the criminal (named Sam) who gets caught with the gun got the gun from his buddy (named Bob). Where do you think Bob got the gun? You think Bob would be less likely to give Sam the gun if Bob knew that HE would go to jail if Sam got caught with it?


And as an aside, in the 'let's face reality' section of the discussion, the fact is that most 'prior felon' uses of firearms in the, um, 'continued execution of mischief' falls into the gang-on-gang category.


Lets see a citation for that too. Hint: Most homicides are NOT gang related. They are connected to “arguments,” usually over money or sex. Not sure about general crimes, but I would bet that most household robberies or armed robberies of gas stations or random people are not gang related.

Ranger Roberts
January 29, 2014, 10:12 AM
I disagree with almost everything that the OP said. The part I am most hung up on is the "sane" gun control laws. Who determines what is sane? If 50% of our citizens are against something and 50% are for something, does that mean that every other person I talk to is insane? I used to jump out of airplanes for a living and willingly re-upped for another tour, knowing that I was going to have to go back to an active war zone. Is that the behavior of a "sane" individual? Some people would say I was being patriotic but the truth is, I loved what I did. Is that "insane" to some? I bet they would say it is. Does that mean I should lose my gun rights?

As far as selling to a felon goes, I believe it is a slippery slope. For example, John Smith becomes a felon for a crime that hurts nobody (white collar type of crime). Now he can no longer own firearms or vote? If he was such an extreme danger to our citizens, shouldn't he still be incarcerated? People would say that our prison system is setup to punish, not to reform. Ok, I agree. Shouldn't we start spending some of our money changing the system (both prison and mental health) to reform offenders rather than sending BHO to Hawaii every other week to play basketball with his friends? Maybe the time and energy that our elected officials spend trying to pass bull crap gun laws (aka trolling for votes to win another election) can be used on prison reform, healthcare or balancing the budget.

I can go on and on but I won't because it will start to go down that political rabbit hole and it isn't appropriate for this forum.

We have already compromised too much. Time for them to start compromising. Feel free to send a message over to the "other side", I would like to start by talking about suppressors.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 10:14 AM
Where do you think Bob got the gun? You think Bob would be less likely to give Sam the gun if Bob knew that HE would go to jail if Sam got caught with it?Where? Well, he probably stole it, or got it from someone else who did.

Or he's one of the many "not yet incarcerated" gang members and friends who already buy guns in straw purchases for their felonious pals -- KNOWING or having REASON TO KNOW that the person they're giving the gun to has a record.

See, they're doing it NOW, even though it's already illegal. Making it more illegal-er isn't going to improve the situation, and will hurt good folks in very real ways.

shootingthebreeze
January 29, 2014, 10:17 AM
...for the most part being civil in responding to an explosive topic. Ryanxia my apologies for opening my comments on you NH thread-

Quite a lot of responses all I expected in the negative vein. I had stated that I'm neither a legislator or a lawyer because I don't have that type of experience and training in those fields, especially with firearm control efforts.

Contrary to what many probably think is that I support the Second Amendment. My concern, the chief concern of my thread is the introduction of many bills at state level which is increasing as I said almost weekly. I do agree that many die-I.E the Michigan firearm bill is stagnant at this time and is not going anywhere fast.

But the battering rams are continuing. My concern is that victories in CA, NY, and IL (and there are laws there I DON'T agree with) will encourage more bills introduced at state level at a rate never seen before, most of them bad, some might have merit (like the NH bill proposal).

Flexibility, to me is being able to meet the opposition partly instead of being inflexible. I read the NH bill and that is one step sealing off a loop hole with private firearm sales. Granted, criminals will always get weapons on the black market. I know that I'm not naïve.

Again thank you for your comments. I myself can't wait till it gets nicer so I can go to Rose Lake shooting range and practice again it's freezing here in MI.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 10:29 AM
DOJ does not track firearms sales. Thanks to pro-gun efforts, very little meaningful research has ever been done tracking the pipeline of guns to criminals. Actually, the DoJ studies conducted over the last handful of decades have done the unthinkable - THEY ASKED THE CRIMINALS. We, as a society, actually have a pretty dang good understanding of how firearms wind up being used in the commission of violent crimes.

The NRA has done a pretty good job of making sure no one knows for sure how guns get to criminals.
I'd like some proof for this, other than the usual 'the NRA won't support anything that allows LEOs to track gun purchases, so they're keeping LE from doing their job!'.

Would like to see a link to that finding, I’ll wait to respond until I know exactly what you are saying.

Dude - if you're gonna talk about something, please invest the time to research it. The basic research starts here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43, with the Firearms Violence Summary report being the likely first stop.

The Crime Victimization report is an interesting window into the types of crimes most commonly committed, to provide an additional dimension to the debate: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

Hint: Most homicides are NOT gang related. They are connected to “arguments,” usually over money or sex. Not sure about general crimes, but I would bet that most household robberies or armed robberies of gas stations or random people are not gang related. Actually, you're making my point. Most (as in more than half) violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is in fact the result of arguments over gang-related activies or arguments between criminal actors engaged in criminalized activities such as trafficing in sex and/or drugs. The inability for a victim of violent crime involving a firearm to ID their assailant as a gang member makes the survey question 'was The Bad Guy recognizably a gang member' a bit harder to answer directly, but still the FBI Supplemental Homocide Report in 2003 said that 10% of all homocides were committed by a known gang mamber.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf

I suggest reading the Firearm Violence summary report from BJS and then doing some subsequent detailed research on the topic: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf I also highly recommend that, when you bring statistics or data points to the table, they be mature enough to show within them their collection and analysis methodology and the margins of error. Once nice thing about the BJS data is that it's 'professional', in that it contains references to the surveys used to collect the data as well as complete discussions about how the data was assembled and manipulated. Many folk claining to 'show data' don't bring that degree of rigor, and as a result the findings are highly suspect.

Debate is a good thing. Entering a debate without the benefit of fact is not. Demanding that others prove you wrong without being willing to prove your own point is the hallmark of the intellectually immature.

ETA:

An interesting side read is the Weapons Use By Offense Type report: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43 I find it interesting to note that the majority of reported violent crimes in the US in 2009 did not involve the use of any visible weapon at all, much less a firearm.

RPRNY
January 29, 2014, 10:29 AM
Well, as the OP probably imagined, he's had a rough reception for his ideas. The concept of passing "good" laws at the Federal level to prevent bad ones at the State level has theoretical merit. In practice however, there are numerous problems.

First is the assumption that more laws are needed.

As you note, the founding fathers may not have envisaged the evolution of firepower that has happened. But the assertion that they were unaware of the risks of "gang violence", criminal use of firearms, etc., ignores the fact that a key reason for scrapping the Articles of Confederation and adopting the Constitution was Shay' s Rebellion, the armed revolt by western Massachusetts farmers who had sought to take the Springfield Armory, at the time the nation's only government arms manufacturer. They were absolutely aware of the risks posed by an armed populace. And having just won independence through armed insurrection against a tyrannical government, they still chose to protect the natural right of man to defend himself and his property as well as to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. As to lunatics shooting people, they already had laws against murder, so did not see the need to restrict a right viewed second only to freedom of expression to curtail that which was already forbidden. As has been eloquently stated, gun control to limit violence is like getting a vasectomy because you think the neighbors have too many children.

But, as to the evolution of firepower, the 1934 National Firearms Act addressed this and was somehow deemed by SCOTUS as compatible with 2A. Then the 1968 Gun Control Act further restricted our rights. This is difficult to understand in view of the wording of the Second Amendment whose operative clause "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems to leave little wiggle room for restrictions. But we have the NFA, GCA, any number of further Federal restrictions such as Lautenburg etc, and State and Local restrictions up the wazoo. So, a natural right, the mere infringement of which is specifically banned in the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, has already been substantially infringed and abridged, in part to address issues such as the evolution of firearms.

Yet, you and others suggest death from mass shootings merits further restrictions. Ok, how many deaths? Well, mass shootings account for up to 100 deaths a year. Murder is of course already illegal so how more laws will stop the mentally deranged from committing it I am unsure. But if drastic measures at merited to stop 100 deaths per year, then let them be merited in all such cases. Over 250 murders per year of children under 14 could be stopped by simply prohibiting anyone who uses or has used alcohol from owning or operating a motor vehicle. Why is this not an urgent need being addressed by law makers? More murders were committed in 2013 with hammers than with rifles of any kind, let alone semi automatic rifles with large "magazineclips". So why is hammer control legislation not an urgent priority?

Ah, but gun deaths in total? The US has much higher gun deaths than other civilized Western nations with very strict gun controls, so gun control must be the key. Well, here you may have a point. But it's not one that most gun control advocates and their legislative allies want to hear. The majority of gun violence in this country is urban and black. Removing urban, African-American perpetrated gun violence from our annual statistics would make the US 147th in the world for gun related deaths. So, if you really wanted to make a difference in gun related deaths, prohibiting African-Americans who live in cities of more than 50,000 people from gun ownership might hugely diminish gun violence. But you would have to ride roughshod over the 14th Amendment to do so. Since you seem willing to ignore the Second Amendment in pursuit of reasonable measures to protect society, why not the 14th?

Murder is illegal, whether committed with a gun, a car or a hammer. I see no demand for laws to seriously restrict the Constitutionally unprotected right to keep and bear either of the latter. Therefore, my suspicion is that gun control legislation is not driven by utilitarian desires for the common good.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:29 AM
Where? Well, he probably stole it, or got it from someone else who did.


Or he got it from someone who bought it from a dealer, or a private sale.

Yes, theft will always be an option, and there is little that can be done about that.

But, a large percentage of guns in criminal hands are never stolen… they enter the secondary market through sales that originate at a dealer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438583/

“Licensed gun dealers are a major conduit for gun trafficking. Prior to May 1999, a single gun store sold more than half of the guns recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, WI, shortly following retail sale.”

In this case, the dealer is likely following the law, selling guns to people with the proper 4473 and everything, but those people are then immediately selling to criminals or selling to someone who sells to criminals. Regardless, they aren't all being stolen and tracking the path from dealer to criminal and arresting the last person in line will deter people from making these sales.

Or he's one of the many "not yet incarcerated" gang members and friends who already buy guns in straw purchases for their felonious pals -- KNOWING or having REASON TO KNOW that the person they're giving the gun to has a record.

And under current law, that "not yet incarcerated" gang member can continue to provide guns indefinitely.

Add UBC and traceable sales, first time one of his gang friends gets caught with one of his guns, he goes to jail. Source of guns cut off, good for everyone except the gang.

steelerdude99
January 29, 2014, 10:33 AM
...

When 'compromise' starts to mean 'give us background checks, and we'll reopen the NFA', I'll consider compromise.



I have yet to see any compromise firearm legislation in the true sense of the word compromise. The anti-gunners always want to take more rights without adding anything that gun rights supporters want. I think giving up interstate transfer parts of the CGA of 68 in exchange for a better way to do background checks would be a good place to start.

Here is an idea that I think provides added gun-rights and may stop prohibited persons from easily getting their hands on firearms via the legal supply chain. It will not stop prohibited persons from exchanging guns, but no law will. If someone wants to buy a firearm from a stranger, one can get NICS pre-check ID number. The ID number can be checked via web similar to the way I can check a FFL to see if it’s still valid, the seller would enter the ID number and the last name. They get a GREEN, YELLOW (investigation PENDING) or RED code. The ID can be used by a private citizen to buy from an FFL or another private citizen. Here is the compromise part … it would work that way anywhere in the US and would permit private non-FFL transfers even those out of the sellers state.

There can be a few dollar fee for a validated and dated check, but it helps the seller too as they don’t have to worry about losing their paperwork due to a record of payment with NICS. The validated and dated GREEN code paperwork can be attached to whatever record(s) one keeps for a bill of sale. Sellers keep the validated and dated GREEN code paperwork for their protection. No firearm serial number is involved. One can transfer one or more firearms at a time after the GREEN code. As it’s just a pre-check ID, there will be no “national registration” possible. It gives the government no more info than if an FFL purchase has been made. States that still have registration will just act as they have, it’s just the FFL will not be needed. Some states (aka NY, CA, IL, NJ and ... ) will object to such an idea, but when federal UBC was pushed earlier this year, these states were not objecting to UBC saying it's a "states rights" issue.

My worry with giving seller info would be police coming and wanting firearm serial number info if they know the seller. That would mean allowing anonymous checks without payments, but without seller protections. They can back trace from mfgr. to original buyer anyhow. If you did not want to get a validated copy of your GREEN code, just print the screen that has the date. It would also have to be illegal for government to save IP addresses of requests or force ISPs (internet service providers) to do it for them.

When an ID would not be needed? If I feel that I could sell or just transfer a firearm to my non-prohibited wife: NO ID … no problem… Sell or transfer to other non-prohibited family member or friend without an ID, no problem. If you don’t know the person well enough to be pretty darn sure they are not a prohibited person, ask for a pre-check ID and check it for yourself. The government would have to prove that you sold to a prohibited person on a certain date and you were just too lazy to check.

Its NICS’ responsibility to keep the system accurate with convictions as well as rights restored updates as well as provide a GREEN code only when a person is NOT prohibited. They would also have to be able to date trace transitions, especially GREEN to RED. That would prevent a forged GREEN. As such when you sell the firearm after a validated and dated GREEN result, you can’t be sued for what the person does with it.

Anyone see any issues or more importantly gives away too much?

chuck

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:34 AM
I'd like some proof for this, other than the usual 'the NRA won't support anything that allows LEOs to track gun purchases, so they're keeping LE from doing their job!'.



http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

"The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:36 AM
I'd like some proof for this, other than the usual 'the NRA won't support anything that allows LEOs to track gun purchases, so they're keeping LE from doing their job!'.



http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391

"Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Only 2 are physicians. Only 1 has evaluated the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.6

Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies. To those whose interests were threatened by such reforms, it made perfect sense to choke off the production of the evidence. This effort was led by Congressman Jay Dickey, self-described “point person for the NRA.”7 It succeeded. When rates of firearm violence were at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence-based solutions."

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:40 AM
Dude - if you're gonna talk about something, invest the time to research it. The basic research starts here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43



You made a VERY specific claim:

" According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

I have been through a lot of the BJS information and never heard that.

If you are going to make a very specific claim, don't refer me to a site with 1000s of pages of documents and say "find it yourself."

Either back it up or withdraw your statement.

mnrivrat
January 29, 2014, 10:43 AM
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution

I haven't the time to read the posts at the moment but wanted to quickly address that part of the OP's statement.

When it comes to the peoples rights of basic and inaliable feedoms nothing will ever change. You are either a free man ,or a servant subject of government and its control. The time period is not relivent and neither is the technology.

It's not about the gun, it is about government infringing on your natural rights as a free man. The 2nd ( like all others placed into our constitutional Bill of Rights) was about limiting governments ability to draft laws that undermine these rights of the citizens it is suppose to serve. I will return later to read all the posts and further comment if appropriate.

Krusty783
January 29, 2014, 10:43 AM
I don't have statistics, but I do know that a significant percentage of the legislation proposed during each session goes absolutely nowhere. That's exactly where most of the newly proposed firearms bills will end up.

We don't need new laws restricting firearms. We need the federal gov't to cowboy up and fully fund the implementation of the laws in place:

Remember all the lettered questions on a 4473? There are minimal resources in place to verify the responses to all those questions other than felonies. There is also almost no enforcement against those who lie on the forms in order to obtain a firearm illegally.

The federal gov't needs to fund a system to enable & compel providers to report those who may be a danger to themselves or others. There is currently no cohesive way to do this due to HIPPA and the patchwork of states who do and don't report.

Also, it should be a law that stolen firearms be reported in a timely manner. This make sense to me because the owner would be more likely to get their property back and it would send stupid criminals to jail or to jail longer - if they get arrested for a crime and are possessing a stolen firearm.

The S/N's should then be entered into a database which all dealers must use to verify the provenance of all used guns offered for sale or trade. This database should just contain the S/N and firearm info. If a dealer gets a hit, they call the ATF who then handles the investigation. There is no need for personal information about the legal owner beyond their name on the original police report. Putting this duty on FFLs will make sure it is followed.

But, we all know that the stolen firearm database will quickly be perverted into a registration database for all firearms, so that might not be a good idea.

Personally, I think we should either revise the NFA to A) pertain only to destructive devices (who needs a grenade launcher?) or B) just do away with it completely.

I'm leaning towards A because B would free everything. While this sounds great, B would put very dangerous things in circulation and present opportunities for theft and under the table dealings and I really don't like the idea of drug rings being able to easily procure grenade launchers...

I think revising the NFA to only pertain to destructive devices would have a significant affect on crime because statistics have shown repeatedly that increased gun ownership drives down violent crime rates. The reverse is also true - look at the UK.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 10:53 AM
Actually, the DoJ studies conducted over the last handful of decades have done the unthinkable - THEY ASKED THE CRIMINALS. We, as a society, actually have a pretty dang good understanding of how firearms wind up being used in the commission of violent crimes.


I am well aware of that study, I have actually cited it in the past and been told (by pro-gun posters) it is unreliable because they asked criminals. But, I am happy to use it.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

“Inmates' retail purchase of firearms
fell between 1991 and 1997
In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had
used or possessed a firearm during
their current offense bought or traded
for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea
market, or gun show (table 8). Nearly
40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from
family or friends. About 3 in 10
received the weapon from drug
dealers, off the street, or through the
black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or
other type of theft.”

In order of frequency:

40% from family friends
30% from street dealers or black market
14% from retail, pawnshops, flea market or gun show
10% from theft

So, LAST on the list is theft, the one that is most difficult to address. #1 on the list is family and friend, THE VERY ISSUE THAT UBS AND TRACEABLE SALES WOULD ADDRESS MOST SUCCSEFULLY!

The grey area is that “30% from street dealers or black market.” We don’t know where those street dealers get the guns. It is probably a mix of 1. FFLs 2. Theft 3. Private sales. There are not more details than that.

Obviously “bought the gun from someone off armslist” is not on the list. That study was conducted in 1997, Armslist went online in 2009. If you know of a more recent study that includes FTF transaction originated online, I’d be interested in reading it.

Yo Mama
January 29, 2014, 10:54 AM
I HATE that argument, acting like general gun control had anything to do with the holocaust.

Gun restrictions for German Citizens were RELAXED under Hitler. German citizens could, and did, own guns. That was never the problem.

The problem was that Hitler convinced the whole country that one minority group (the Jews) were the source of all their problems and if they would just get rid of that minority group, things would be better. Convinced of this, the whole country stripped that one minority group of ALL their rights. Yes, guns were included in that, but it wasn't a general gun control campaign for all of Germany. German citizens had guns and could have resisted the holocaust. They chose not to.

Frankly, I have heard more arguments from pro-gun people that line up with the Nazi/Hitler rhetoric than I have from anti-gun people.

Everything you just said is factually inaccurate. Also, I'm Jewish so you have no idea how far this is ingrained into our DNA. Jews are killed everywhere they have ever lived. In Germany, they were not the only class of citizen not allowed to own guns, other citizens were also targeted including the gay, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and gypsys.

IF these groups were allowed firearms, they would not be dead.

We were registered. We were "background" checked. We were killed. You will never convince me otherwise.

hso
January 29, 2014, 10:58 AM
I agree that there's great concern for the shift to state level legislation to restrict firearms ownership. I see it as a great two fold problem. State legislators have less time and resources to develop a deep understanding of the statistics and the crime data. They serve smaller constituencies where they need to be perceived as "doing something" for the benefit of those voters at the same time having less real control or influence over what can be done to reduce crime and its causes. This leads to "feel good" legislation being proposed and voted on that they can point to in their campaigns and almost all gun control legislation falls into this trap. They can't reduce poverty or improve education or replace squalor with opportunity and they can't bring businesses to move into the areas of their districts suffering from those social ills to offset them and they can't help free those constituents to move to where those opportunities exist so they engage in bread and circuses activities and they put bandaids on gaping wounds in their communities. It unfortunately sells all too well.

That combination of limited time/understanding, pandering, micro constituencies makes state houses great targets for gun control advocates.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 11:17 AM
Actually, you're making my point. Most (as in more than half) violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is in fact the result of arguments over gang-related activies or arguments between criminal actors engaged in criminalized activities such as trafficing in sex and/or drugs.



Again, citation? You are stating many "facts," but I don't see you backing it up with any real data except a general citation to the BJS site.

Because here is the data I see around murders circumstances:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls

-Most murders are not committed as part of a felony
-The largest category is “Unknown,” followed by “Other Arguments” and “Other – not specified” - in other words we don't really know the exact circumstances around most homicides
-“Gangland killings” and “Juvenile Gang Killings” account for less than 1,000 murders each year

Nothing in that supports your claim. In fact, the only evidence you posted…


the FBI Supplemental Homocide Report in 2003 said that 10% of all homocides were committed by a known gang mamber.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf


…seems to refute your claim that most crime is gang related. Ten percent is definitely not most, and a bit later in that same document:

"Victims believed the offenders were
gang members in about 12% of all
aggravated assaults that occurred
between 1993 and 2003. Offenders
were identified as gang members in
about 4% of rapes, 10% of robberies,
and 6% of simple assaults."

Your claim is that most crime is gang related. The information you posted puts the numbers BELOW 15%.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 11:26 AM
#1 on the list is family and friend, THE VERY ISSUE THAT UBS AND TRACEABLE SALES WOULD ADDRESS MOST SUCCSEFULLY!

How? Somewhere in the chain of events, a bunch of these folk are already doing an illegal transfer. Do you think that making it 'more illegal' somehow will cause these folk to pause? What it will do is make a whole new class of criminals out of folk who otherwise would have posed no danger to society, much as our highly vaunted War On Drugs has done.

The interesting thing to ponder is that, back when I first looked into this issue in 2007, the rate at which violent criminals (or soon-to-be-criminals) turned to friends and family for access to a firearm had not statistically changed in any significant way subsequent to the institution of the 1994 NICS Instant Background Check.

Bad People find ways to be Bad People. The fact that so many of the high-profile shootings over the last handful of years have perpetrated by folk clearly NOT PROHIBITED at the time that they purchased the firearm should bear evidence that trying to regulate objects to alter human behavior is a fools errand.

" According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

I have been through a lot of the BJS information and never heard that.

If you are going to make a very specific claim, don't refer me to a site with 1000s of pages of documents and say "find it yourself."

Either back it up or withdraw your statement. So much for debate tone. I'm off looking to find the cite; it was a 2007-era document from (I think) the FBI and I'm looking for it now. I'll update this post iffen I find it.

ETA - I found a BJS article from May 1995 that appears to be the original source:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/FFRO.PDF

Among Federal offenders whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms [and] 23% violated Federal laws that govern dealing in firearms. Among Federal offenders convicted of firearms offenses and other, more serious offenses, 82% used or carried a firearm during another crime [and] 10% were persons prohibited from having firearms.

Remember that the notion of 'prohibited person' was introduced for the first time in the GCA 1968. By 1995, we had significant experience with how well that definition played against actual observed criminal population and behavior. Guess what? The vast, vast preponderance of folk convicted of Federal weapons offenses were not prohibited persons at the time that they acquired the weapon. They were Latent Bad People, if you will, not yet instantiated into Obviously Bad People in the eyes of the law. Couple that with the BJS statistics showing that most firearms used in violent crimes were NOT OBTAINED VIA INTERACTION WITH STRANGERS (e.g. gun show or Armslist or any other future scenario in which the actors are not know to each other), and I have to ask how expanding background checks across all firearm transfers can possibly materially alter the rate of crimes committed using a firearm....

It would seem that those that are known lawbreakers largely get their guns from other folk willing to break the existing laws to get them firearms, and those that aren't known lawbreakers may or may not use a gun in the future to break a law and we have no means at our disposal to determine that likelihood or prohibit them from their Constitutional right until they step out and display their bad intentions.

As I stated earlier - my mutual fund knows better than to try to predict future returns based upon past performance. Why do we seem to think that engaging in the same behavior in our criminal justice system and firearms regulations will provide any more accurate? Here's a hint - it doesn't, and we have decades of proof of that.

Your claim is that most crime is gang related. The information you posted puts the numbers BELOW 15%. I updated my original post to indicate that I was including loose criminal association in that statistic. My point, lost in the gang reference evidently, is that most violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is perpetrated by known criminals engaged in the act of Being Bad Guys against other known criminals. The percentage of victims of violent crime who do not have prior criminal association is actually pretty low.

ETA: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf Figure 41 is of interest; an orthoganal look at the rate at which homicides have included a gun by type of circumstance.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 11:41 AM
Debate is a good thing. Entering a debate without the benefit of fact is not. Demanding that others prove you wrong without being willing to prove your own point is the hallmark of the intellectually immature.


If you are going to call someone out like this, you should probably follow your own advice.

As a review, let’s put some of your facts to the test.

“Actually, you're making my point. Most (as in more than half) violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is in fact the result of arguments over gang-related activies or arguments between criminal actors “

“the fact is that most 'prior felon' uses of firearms in the, um, Continued Execution Of Mischief falls into the gang-on-gang category”

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf

and

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls

Both place the percentages of gang related criminal activity well below 50%. If you have other information you would like to cite that is different, please do so.

“Moreover, folk that *were* already felons in fact got their guns from acquaintences or via theft moreso than via any other means. The fact is that face to face sales and gun show sales represented a very small percentage of all means of acquiring a gun by a prohibited person. “

Sort of….

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Acquaintances, yes, #1 source.

Retail, pawnshops, flea market or gun show are 14%, slightly higher than theft at 10%.

If you have other information you would like to cite that is different, please do so.

“most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm”

No proof, no citation, just an unsupported claim.

“It's not common nor particlarly successful for most gang members to show up at a private FTF sale or gun show and successfully buy a gun.”

No proof, no citation, just an unsupported claim.


If there are any of my facts in dispute, let me know, because I usually remember where I found them.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 11:46 AM
Just saw your post with citation... reviewing now.

Ok, just so I am certain we are on the same page... what do you think Item #41 is saying? What claim is that supporting?

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 11:52 AM
Your assertion (in Post #37) that I attempted to address was simple - FTF transfers between strangers (via gun boards or other) was a threat vector that needed to be closed. The statistics say that you're incorrect. You cannot do a FTF between strangers if one of them is an acquaintence of the other.

You've managed to take my aside comments WRT violence between criminal associates and turn them into a jousting match. I'm certainly willing to concede that jousting match to you if it'll drive you back to the point that you made that I refuted - that FTF gun sales between strangers is a significant threat vector that needs to be closed.

Your call.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 12:22 PM
In this case, the dealer is likely following the law, selling guns to people with the proper 4473 and everything, but those people are then immediately selling to criminals or selling to someone who sells to criminals. Regardless, they aren't all being stolen and tracking the path from dealer to criminal and arresting the last person in line will deter people from making these sales.If that was the case AT ALL, it would already be happening. You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person. And that's what many, many -- if not all -- of these illicit sales consist of. If a person of your acquaintance tells you he needs you to go buy a gun for him, a) that's a straw purchase and illegal on the face of it, and b) you bloody well know WHY he's asking you to do it.

So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.

Think this through.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 12:26 PM
And under current law, that "not yet incarcerated" gang member can continue to provide guns indefinitely. Nope. The minute he's convicted of selling a gun to his known felon pal, he's done. That's law, on the books right now. Why isn't it working?

Why, in the name of JM Browning, is another law going to make it FINALLY work right?

Add UBC and traceable sales, first time one of his gang friends gets caught with one of his guns, he goes to jail. Source of guns cut off, good for everyone except the gang.
Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.

So the law is ALREADY perfectly capable of what you're demanding with your new law.

Perfectly capable, EXCEPT not capable of making a felon out of grandpa who gives a gun to uncle Jimmy or neighbor Bob for his birthday without running a background check and doing a "traceable" sale.

These laws do ONE thing -- they hurt good people.

Ryanxia
January 29, 2014, 12:47 PM
When a homemade gun can be made for about $20 with plumbing parts gun control is pointless in the name of safety.

TanklessPro
January 29, 2014, 12:57 PM
Laws are only for the people that are willing to obey them. No new law will stop someone that wants to do evil things. Example........ Murder and theft are illegal but they still happen.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 01:17 PM
You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person.


Actually, I CAN say that…

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-law-inspires-confusion-over-whether-straw-buyer-of-weapon-can-be/1260651

“authorities said the law still was not sufficiently clear to arrest Bishop's friend — even though, according to Gualtieri, the friend was present when a firearms dealer initially refused to sell Bishop a 12-gauge shotgun. The friend, he said, returned later with Bishop's money to buy the firearm for him.

“The sticking point, Andringa [a senior prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office] said, is the word "knowingly" in the statute. She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.

It is not necessarily enough, she said, that the friend knew in general terms that Bishop couldn't legally buy a firearm.

Said Andringa, "How do you prove that the kid who bought the gun knew that Bishop was prohibited by state law" from owning a weapon? "We've got to prove that.”

Let me quote part of that again:

“She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.”

Is that representative of every case everywhere? No, obviously, but it is pretty clear evidence that the “knowingly” clause in the law makes things much harder on prosecutors.

And yes, I do realize that this APPEARS to be a pretty open and shut case of a straw purchase, but I researched the case and the original buyer was never charged. It seems the current laws are pretty easy to evade.


Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.



Actually, no, that isn't what happens.

The police send a trace request to the ATF. 70% of the time, that can be linked to A buyer within 5 days, but not necessarily the last buyer/previous owner before the criminal. If any FTF sale has happened with the gun, that buyer may just be some random guy who sold a gun he bought at an FFL and it is a dead end.

Or, that buyer may have knowingly sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, he says (like so many on this thread suggested: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739942&highlight=bill+of+sale)

"I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet."

And the cops have a dead end on locating the source of the gun and that buyer can continue to buy guns and sell them to criminal arms dealers. So no, the law is NOT perfectly capable of prosecuting people who buy guns and then sell them into the criminal market.

Contrast that to requiring UBC.

That buyer may have sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, the buyer is arrested for making a sale with the required background check. Source of guns cut off.



So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.


No, that is not what I am arguing.

First, UBC does not make the same actions double plus more illegaler.

Currently, it is illegal to knowingly sell to a criminal. Prosecution requires proving that the firearm was sold and that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited.

UBC makes it illegal to sell without a BC. The buyer doesn’t matter, your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) does not matter, the sale itself is illegal. If you sold the gun without a BC, you committed a crime.

1. "Knowingly selling to a prohibited person"
2. "Selling a gun without a BC"

These are different actions.

Second, people will break laws all day long, every day, all year if they feel little to no risk of being caught or punished.

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 01:30 PM
I'm certainly willing to concede that jousting match to you if it'll drive you back to the point that you made that I refuted - that FTF gun sales between strangers is a significant threat vector that needs to be closed.

Your call.

Definitely we can go back to that point, but you are mis-stating my position a bit by focusing on the one example I gave of using armslist. That is one example of one part of the problem.


More accurately stated:

Gun sales without a background check that allow the sale of guns to prohibited persons with little to no risk of prosecution for the seller are a significant threat vector.


Which, that 40% of guns criminals got from "friends, family, and acquaintances" all fall into that category and are the leading source of guns to criminals.

An interesting side effect of UBC would be that we could probably get rid of all the "straw sale" laws by just saying that "every transfer must go through an BC."

So, i can buy a gun on behalf of someone else, just when I transfer it to them, it has to happen with a BC. Mr. Abramski (of the current SCOTUS case) would have been in the clear, which is what I think most of us think should be the case. It would also remove all the confusion over "agency" and buying as gifts and all that ballyhoo on the 4473.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 01:39 PM
An interesting side effect of UBC would be that we could probably get rid of all the "straw sale" laws by just saying that "every transfer must go through an BC."
Do you have any insight into what percentage of the 40% of guns [that] criminals got from "friends, family, and acquaintances" were already illegally conducted transfers under the current laws (e.g. straw man purchases, thefts, sales to known prohibited persons)? That would seem an important data point, since we need to effectively exclude those components of the total when considering the actual likely impact of your proposed solution.

ETA: It would also seem prudent to find a means by which to account for the issue of stolen firearms being shared amongst Bad Folk :

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

In 83% of burglaries and 85% of other property crimes that involved a stolen firearm, none of the stolen guns had been recovered at the time of the NCVS interview (table 5). Assuming these guns were not recovered later, this amounts to an annual average of at least 135,000 unrecovered guns from burglaries and 51,800 unrecovered guns from other property crimes.

hso
January 29, 2014, 02:04 PM
You won't impact straw sales since they're already a violation of federal law and the FFLs and paperwork make that fact known at the time of sale.

Straw purchasers do so knowingly and violate the law knowingly every time they falsify a 4473.

Again, UCR shows a continuous decline in violent crime and murder rate. A law already is on the books making it a crime to falsify a 4473 and make a straw purchase. Another law won't make the rate drop any faster because it doesn't address the root cause of violent crime at all.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 02:07 PM
You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person.


Actually, I CAN say that…

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-law-inspires-confusion-over-whether-straw-buyer-of-weapon-can-be/1260651

“authorities said the law still was not sufficiently clear to arrest Bishop's friend — even though, according to Gualtieri, the friend was present when a firearms dealer initially refused to sell Bishop a 12-gauge shotgun. The friend, he said, returned later with Bishop's money to buy the firearm for him.

“The sticking point, Andringa [a senior prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office] said, is the word "knowingly" in the statute. She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.

It is not necessarily enough, she said, that the friend knew in general terms that Bishop couldn't legally buy a firearm.Ok...so that's pretty inane. But what of it? Look, you'll find examples of clear cut laws that don't get enforced by whatever agency for whatever reason. Doesn't help sustain your argument that the solution to this "problem" is ANOTHER law.

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the existing law, either. "Prohibited persons" is a fairy tale we tell ourselves to pretend we can be safe. I'd like to see GCA '68 completely repealed. It is a red herring in the pursuit of realistic crime and law policy.


Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.



Actually, no, that isn't what happens.

The police send a trace request to the ATF. 70% of the time, that can be linked to A buyer within 5 days, but not necessarily the last buyer/previous owner before the criminal. If any FTF sale has happened with the gun, that buyer may just be some random guy who sold a gun he bought at an FFL and it is a dead end.Yes, and that's A GOOD thing.

The links that tie buyer to seller and create the "chain of custody" SHOULD be broken whenever at all possible. But that's not a matter of criminal law policy (to which it certainly does become a, perhaps regrettable, hindrance) but of fundamental 2nd Amendment rights (an infinitely more compelling matter) -- if there are lawful remaining ways to fracture any element of government tracking of firearms owners and ownership we SHOULD be taking fullest advantage of that at every conceivable opportunity. This does, of course, broaden the discussion a lot further and perhaps diverges from the question at hand.

Or, that buyer may have knowingly sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, he says (like so many on this thread suggested: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739942&highlight=bill+of+sale)

"I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet."

And the cops have a dead end on locating the source of the gun and that buyer can continue to buy guns and sell them to criminal arms dealers. So no, the law is NOT perfectly capable of prosecuting people who buy guns and then sell them into the criminal market.If that buyer's name appears more than about once selling guns that show up in police custody, at the very least he can be charged with dealing in firearms without a license. Remember, the BATFE is another hammer that can be swung at people if the police want to put pressure on them.



So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.


No, that is not what I am arguing.

First, UBC does not make the same actions double plus more illegaler.

Currently, it is illegal to knowingly sell to a criminal. Prosecution requires proving that the firearm was sold and that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited.

UBC makes it illegal to sell without a BC. The buyer doesn’t matter, your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) does not matter, the sale itself is illegal. If you sold the gun without a BC, you committed a crime. Ok, you're right, it puts another weight on the shoulders of the citizen in disposing of his personal property, and creates another way to hamper the free flow of firearms among citizens. I understand what you see as the benefits. They aren't worth the cost.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect. All of which tightens down the screws on the private sales of firearms without government say-so and tracking. This is the opposite of progress.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?Well, some will, but more importantly, MANY good average joe sorts WON'T. Won't sell privately at all because "what if?" What if the credentials were fake? Well, I guess we need more tracking, more control, more enforcement! See the problem? Instead of loosening up gun rights and freedom, this is clamping down tighter and tighter. Giving normal people the fear that something bad will happen to them if they don't follow the increasingly intricate system of laws governing firearms. It has to STOP. It has to REVERSE.

tarosean
January 29, 2014, 02:35 PM
Come on guys. Don't be so hard on him. How about we all agree to give up all our guns for one year. Then the next year we'll petition .gov to give them back. That's reasonable.....right? I mean .gov has always been in the habit of giving power to the citizens. Not taking it away. You guys are just being mean. Now stop it or I'm gonna tell!!!

I don't know man... Might want to consult a Native American to see how well it works out?


All kidding aside.. With all the shootings splashed all over the media recently. We are in for a heck of a fight, facts be damned....

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 02:36 PM
Editing.... may have misread something.... will have to come back later...

Speedo66
January 29, 2014, 02:47 PM
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.

NY's Gov. Cuomo says he's a gun owner too (shotgun). Lot of good it's done the State of NY. :confused:

Robert
January 29, 2014, 02:55 PM
Yup no one could envision the future of firearms...

These rights are not derived from a piece of paper, therefore then can not be limited or removed.

benEzra
January 29, 2014, 03:52 PM
Shootingthebreeze, what you are suggesting did not help UK gun owners preserve their rights after Dunblane, nor did it help Australian gun owners preserve their rights after Port Arthur. On the contrary, having given away most of their rights previously, and having turned gun ownership into a privilege rather than a fundamental right, it was trivial for the government post-Dunblane to ban anything they wanted. And nothing is now stopping the UK government from going to even further extremes after the *next* UK mass shooting; after all, pump shotguns are just as prone to such misuse as handguns and autoloading or pump-action rifles are.

What you seem to be suggesting is to treat the prohibitionists as reasonable people who act in good faith, and accept whatever restrictions the prohibitionists offer that are not *too* onerous in hopes that it will reduce their desire to inflict further restrictions upon us.

The problem, as I have discovered, is that the prohibitionists are *not* reasonable people acting in good faith. Appeasement works until next year or the next high-profile shooting or the next well-funded push, when the prohibitionists take the new law as the new line of scrimmage and start trying to move the ball further.

I do certainly believe that we need to pick our battles, and that (say) repealing the NFA or the current NICS system is not feasible at present. But the gun control fundamentalists have shown clearly in the past couple of years that they are not interested in the slightest in crime control; what they hate the most is lawful gun ownership, not criminal misuse.

frank c
January 29, 2014, 03:59 PM
Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it.
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper.
You can give up your rights if you want (NOT ME).Trust me NOT everyone in Michigan feels this way including me.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 04:10 PM
The links that tie buyer to seller and create the "chain of custody" SHOULD be broken whenever at all possible. But that's not a matter of criminal law policy (to which it certainly does become a, perhaps regrettable, hindrance) but of fundamental 2nd Amendment rights (an infinitely more compelling matter) -- if there are lawful remaining ways to fracture any element of government tracking of firearms owners and ownership we SHOULD be taking fullest advantage of that at every conceivable opportunity. This does, of course, broaden the discussion a lot further and perhaps diverges from the question at hand.


Not “perhaps” a hindrance. Definitely a hindrance.

And that is the real discussion.

How much do we want to hinder law enforcement and the justice system in prosecuting criminals in exchange for privacy?

Me? I don’t care too much about privacy. Doesn’t bother me if the gov’t knows I have guns, as long as they don’t do anything to harm me because they know. I’m not too worried about the hypotheticals of a federal confiscation scheme, it will never get through congress and SCOTUS, although some of the state ones are pretty bad (which was the OP’s point… we have no meaningful national law, so we are getting a pile of bad local laws trying to make up for it). I definitely DO care about criminals getting guns. I live in a high crime city… lots of criminals, lots of murders (and many of them random), the less guns the criminals have, the less chance I have to go to a funeral of a friend.


Well, some will, but more importantly, MANY good average joe sorts WON'T. Won't sell privately at all because "what if?" What if the credentials were fake?

What? It isn’t that hard. Go to an FFL, say “I want to sell my gun to Billy.” FFL does the paperwork (same as they do every day) and done. No burden on the Average Joe to do anything except take an extra trip and not forget their ID.

Now, all the ridiculous hoops you have to jump through in CT, NY and CA?? Yeah, let’s get rid of those, they don’t do anything useful. But a simple BC that already gets performed millions of times each year is not some hieroglyphic, indecipherable burden and the FFLs already know how to do it. Put the legal burden on the dealers to do their paperwork right (which, that legal burden is ALREADY on the dealers, so that is nothing new). If Average Joe goes through the process, he is clear.

Sam1911
January 29, 2014, 04:14 PM
Well Pizza, at least we've reached the crux of the disagreement. You're ok with basically all gun sales being a federal matter and that is abhorrent to me. I do hope we never come to a point where we're faced with such a choice. Perhaps if we all keep fighting, the matter remains moot and neither of us have to settle for such a thing whether we're appalled by it (me) or ok with it (you).

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 04:38 PM
Alright rbernie, I took a look at that document.


Among Federal offenders whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms [and] 23% violated Federal laws that govern dealing in firearms. Among Federal offenders convicted of firearms offenses and other, more serious offenses, 82% used or carried a firearm during another crime [and] 10% were persons prohibited from having firearms.


Your original quote was this:

"According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your implication was that most people committing crimes with guns would not have been caught by a background check. (If incorrect, please let me know)

This document does not in any way support that claim.

The first half of the data (47%) is not about people who committed crimes “involving the use of a firearm.” The quote is about people whose ONLY offense was a firearm offense (dealing, illegal possession, trafficking, etc.)

“whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms”

“WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE” That means that if someone committed murder, armed robbery, assault, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, rape, sexual assault, drug charges or ANY violent crime, they are not included in that statement.

The second half of the quote is a bit odd, it is targeting a very narrow group (people convicted of a federal firearms offense but also convicted of another, more serious offense) and I’m not really sure who those would be. I am guessing those are people who are first time offenders that prosecutors added the federal offense to enhance the sentence. With repeat offenders, sentence enhancement is not as big a priority. BUT, that is speculation, there really isn’t enough information in the document to figure out who they are, but with a bit of work I could determine the number. Roughly, it is about 4,200 cases nationwide in 1993. I wish they had a breakdown of the other offenses, that would tell us if these were violent criminals or just people trying to make some money outside the law. We don't really know.

Regardless, the document as a whole has little bearing on the discussion of general crime across the country and is primarily looking at the effects of federal involvement in sentencing. This is looking at a very narrow list of 6,000 prosecutions that made it to federal court, mostly related to gun trafficking and illegal dealing. This has little to do with day to day crime on the streets. The majority of violent crimes are prosecuted at the state level without federal involvement and, as such, are not included in this document at all.

If you get robbed at gunpoint, if your house gets robbed or thugs beat you up in the street, your case will not make it to FEDERAL court unless it is a very unique case. It will be prosecuted at the state level. Most of the examples in this document are cases of Federal charges being added to another charge for sentence enhancement.

However, at the bottom of the document, there is an indication of how many offenders who committed VIOLENT crimes were prohibited persons.

“More than 70% of violent Federal offenders had been sentenced in the past, regardless of firearms involvement.”

According to this document, the vast majority of violent offenders, those who I am MOST interested in keeping from obtaining guns, are past offenders that would not pass a background check.

So, in summary, this report was looking at 6,000 very unique, federal cases. There were nearly 2 million instances of violent crime in 1993 [ http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls ], that particular 6,000 is not a representative sample and even within that sample, most of the violent offenders (not just someone trying to make an unlawful buck off selling guns) had previous convictions.

Claude Clay
January 29, 2014, 04:51 PM
been said

JN01
January 29, 2014, 04:57 PM
"The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

Citing a hack like Kellerman to prove that the NRA is suppressing the truth is ridiculous. Why should gun owners have their tax dollars spent by the CDC to produce junk-science propaganda pieces (like Kellerman's for example) to prop up legislation to strip them of their rights?

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

It is currently a crime for criminals to attempt to buy guns. Some attempt to do so from FFLs. They are almost NEVER prosecuted. What makes you think your new law will do any better?

Secondly, there are hundreds of millions of guns currently in circulation, the vast majority of which were last transferred by a FFL years or decades ago. Were you to recover a crime gun, track it the the FFL that sold it, then the buyer, how are you going to prove that he sold it illegally yesterday (without going through your UBC) rather than 10 years ago (when your UBC wasn't required)?

Let's assume that your UBC is 100% effective and that no legal gun owners transfer any guns without a background check. Would that dry up the pool of available guns for criminals, or would it create an even more lucrative black market resulting in more burglaries, assaults, etc, to obtain more guns for greater profit?

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 05:12 PM
“More than 70% of violent Federal offenders had been sentenced in the past, regardless of firearms involvement.”

According to this document, the vast majority of violent offenders, those who I am MOST interested in keeping from obtaining guns, are past offenders that would not pass a background check.I can be convicted of multiple misdemeanor violations and still not be a prohibited person. The fact that they were convicted of being a violent felon at one point does not imply that they were previously convicted of violent felonies. In fact, that's exactly the point that the document makes - these violent felons WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY VIOLENT FELONS but were well known to the criminal justice system nevertheless.

The second half of the quote is a bit odd, it is targeting a very narrow group (people convicted of a federal firearms offense but also convicted of another, more serious offense)Based on how I read it, you have it backwards - the 47% data point is for folks ONLY convicted of a firearms offense who should have been prohibited of acquiring and owning a firearm. The 10% quote is the total number of folks convicted of both firearms-related AND non-firearms related felonies who were prohibited persons at the time of conviction.

In other words, almost half of the folk being conviced of ONLY gun felonies were prohibited but only ten percent of folk who engaged in other examples of Badness Using A Gun were prohibited.

So, in summary, this report was looking at 6,000 very unique, federal cases. You call the study group unique - on what basis? If you're going to take data and call it invalid, there needs to be some rationale as to why, other than the fact that it doesn't fit your narrative.

Based on the document, I gleaned the following: during the 12 months ending September 30, 1993, 42,107 people were sentenced for having violated Federal laws of some kind, and that of that number there were 6,987 (16.6%) folk that commited their special brand of Badness using a firearm. Of that approximate seven thousand person sampling, more than half were not prohibited people when they obtained their firearm.

I don't know how that can't be relevant, and I certainly don't see anything that would indicate that the sample population was unrepresentative in any way.

It is currently a crime for criminals to attempt to buy guns. Some attempt to do so from FFLs. They are almost NEVER prosecuted. What makes you think your new law will do any better?The last time that I looked at the NCIS statistics, the percentage of prohibited folk that were prosecuted for knowingly trying to buy a gun was in the single digit range.

Why would that be so, if the goal was to actually find Bad People and keep them from doing Bad Things?

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 05:21 PM
Citing a hack like Kellerman to prove that the NRA is suppressing the truth is ridiculous. Why should gun owners have their tax dollars spent by the CDC to produce junk-science propaganda pieces (like Kellerman's for example) to prop up legislation to strip them of their rights?


I didn't cite Kellerman, I cited a publication of the APA that has a quote from Kellerman in it.

The NRA HAS worked to suppress research into gun injuries and gun violence. This is not some wild conspiracy theory, it is something the NRA is proud of and the congressman who authored the bill has said he was working "as the NRA’s point person in Congress."

The truth is, the NRA does not want there to be any research on gun violence. They don't think they would like the results, so they try to prevent it.

Also, if the CDC is "junk science," then I guess we need to scrap most everything they have taught us about disease prevention, workplace safety, causes and prevention of car accidents, treatment for traumatic injuries, food safety, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

You only disagree with the CDC on the one issue you have a passionate emotional attachment to, other than that you probably never give them a thought and would have no problem with 99.9% of what they say.

THe .1% you disagree with probably has more to do with YOU than the quality of the CDC's science.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 05:24 PM
To those that espouse mandatory and universal background checks, I offer the following, taken from a previous post that I made here on the subject some years back:


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bcft05.txt


* 1.6% of the 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2005 were rejected by the FBI (66,700 applications)or State and local agencies(65,200 applications).

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosive's(ATF) field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS)denials that were referred by the FBI in 2005.

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135 NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.

So - 130,000 folks were denied legal access to a firearm via NICS denial in 2005, of which sixty seven thousand purchases were blocked by the FBI. Of those sixty seven thousand FBI-blocked transactions, less than ten thousand represented denials that were worthy of ATFE investigation, and only 135 denials actually represented cases suitable for Federal prosecution.

161,000 appeals of denials from 1999 to 2005; 57,000 reversed
This means that almost TEN THOUSAND folk were inappropriately denied the right to purchase a firearm in 2005 (presuming the reversal rate trends flat from year to year), and all for the result of one hundred and thirty five Bad Guys getting prosecuted.

More importantly - if 67,000 denials were issued by the FBI in 2005 (the last year for official .gov statistics) and almost 10,000 were demonstrably inappropriate - that's a pretty sobering ratio. Even factoring in the state denials, the NICS system by their own numbers erroneously denies the right to buy a firearm to someone who was legally empowered to do so for at least eight percent of the denials.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 05:41 PM
You call the study group unique - on what basis? If you're going to take data and call it invalid, there needs to be some rationale as to why, other than the fact that it doesn't fit your narrative.


It isn’t a study group. These are the only cases that made it to federal court. That means that all of these cases met one of several unique criteria.

Read this page for more information: http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu2b&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/CCA93B3B87C844BC85256C7900460860?opendocument

Most criminal cases involve violations of state law and are tried in state court, this document does not represent most criminal cases.

Federal convictions under federal law are not representative of general crime in the US. They just aren’t. Federal courts only hear cases that meet unique criteria and only a TINY percentage of criminal cases meet those criteria.

There is plenty of reading out there about the difference between Federal courts and State courts, I’m not going to rehash it here.

PJSprog
January 29, 2014, 05:45 PM
Well shootingthebreeze, I'll give you this much; after searching some of your recent posts, it seems your wavering stance on the Second Amendment has been fairly consistent.

I have to wonder, though, how many of the rest of our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights you are willing to compromise. Where does that insanity stop?

... and speaking of insanity ... you are aware that buzzwords like "sane," "reasonable," and "common sense," when used in regards to gun laws, are the very words used by those who would ultimately disarm us, are you not?

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 06:24 PM
Federal convictions under federal law are not representative of general crime in the US. They just aren’t. Federal courts only hear cases that meet unique criteria and only a TINY percentage of criminal cases meet those criteria. Well, you and I are going to have to disagree on the relevancy of the Federal data on the question at hand. My perception has been that the definition of a Federal crime generally places it in the 'worser than pickpocketing or child support disputes' category (e.g. bank robbery vs. robbery of the Gas-n-Go), and therefore has the potential to OVERREPRESENT the impact of gun violence than would looking solely at state crimes. In other words, there are more gas station robberies in total, but more folk rob banks with guns (on a percentile basis) than rob the local gas station with a gun. Your cite hasn't changed that opinion.

But in the end, you continue to display the singular behavior of investing calories to refute the claims by others that a UBC is bad but won't invest the calories to show the potential benefit of a UBC to those of us who don't see the benefit.

I see no point in trying to debate a position with somebody who won't engage in debate.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 06:56 PM
My perception has been that the definition of a Federal crime generally places it in the 'worser than pickpocketing or child support disputes' category (e.g. bank robbery vs. robbery of the Gas-n-Go),

Well… your "perception" is, quite simply, wrong.

Federal vs. State has nothing to do with severity and everything to do with jurisdiction. The largest category of federal cases are immigration cases, not because they are the most severe, but because immigration is a federal law. Firearm crimes are one of the smallest, because most of the time when a crime is committed with a gun (robbery, assault, murder, etc.) it does not fall under federal jurisdiction, it falls under state jurisdiction.


But in the end, you continue to display the singular behavior of investing calories to refute the claims by others that a UBC is bad but won't invest the calories to show the potential benefit of a UBC to those of us who don't see the benefit.


First, I just went back and looked. You edited in a bunch of stuff into your posts about UBC that I missed. If you had included it in your original post, I would have responded.

I basically explained it in post #71 and I have typed way too much on here today, but here is the short version.

Under current law, there is a low risk of being prosecuted for providing guns to criminals because FTF/private sale laws are so loose that you can sell to a convicted felon and just tell the police it was a private sale. As such, guns flow freely into the criminal market and the people providing them (friends, family, acquaintances, etc.) face little risk of prosecution.

With UBC, that stream becomes inherently illegal. You can no longer claim that the gun you gave to a criminal was a legal sale, because the law now states you must perform a background check and you did not. All those friends, family, acquaintances, etc. will now face criminal charges if they give a gun to someone. This will be a deterrent to potential providers of guns and a tool for prosecuting individuals who provide criminals with guns.

JRH6856
January 29, 2014, 07:17 PM
I have to wonder, though, how many of the rest of our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights you are willing to compromise. Where does that insanity stop?

You know, maybe we should just do away with the whole Bill of Rights. It's so outdated and all. I mean, why do we need freedom of religion? People who believe in an all powerful invisible being in the sky are obviously mentaly unstable and probably dangerous; especially if they vote the way the being tells them to. They shouldn't have access to guns, either.

Why do we need to be protected from quartering soldiers? Like when does that ever happen?

illegal search and seizure? Are you a criminal? What do you have to hide? No one is going to want to search your house without good reason, so be a good person and they won't have a good reason.

You already said you are not a criminal, right? If you aren't going to commit a crime then why do you need access to an attroney or trial by jury? Or protection against self-incrimination? Bad things don't happen to good people. Just tell the nice policeman everything.

And all that stuff about a speedy trial, and confronting your accuser and cruel and unusual punishments?. Again, if you aren't a criminal you don't have to worry about that and if you are, your attorney will handle it (if you can afford one).

Remember, Big Brother Loves You and you love Big Brother. :rolleyes: :banghead:

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 07:19 PM
Firearm crimes are one of the smallest, because most of the time when a crime is committed with a gun (robbery, assault, murder, etc.) it does not fall under federal jurisdiction, it falls under state jurisdictionWe've already established that the vast majority of all violent State crimes don't involve the use of a firearm, per the BJS links provided. Your assertions remain unconvincing, but they are clearly yours.

With UBC, that stream becomes inherently illegal. You can no longer claim that the gun you gave to a criminal was a legal sale, because the law now states you must perform a background check and you did not. All those friends, family, acquaintances, etc. will now face criminal charges if they give a gun to someone. This will be a deterrent to potential providers of guns and a tool for prosecuting individuals who provide criminals with guns.

Prove the benefit to making it illegal. Saying it has benefit doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't begin to address the cost (dollars and non-dollars) involved. We can review statistically some of the positive and negative impact of the current NICS check, using 2005 data, as shown in Post #89 - I think it only fair to show the impact of extending the NICS check into a universal check.

There have also been a fair number of suggestions in this thread that stolen guns and other currently illegal transfers are a significant contributor to the misuse of firearms by prohibited persons, and I'm sure that it would be useful to know how a UBC addresses that issue.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 07:44 PM
We've already established that the vast majority of all violent State crimes don't involve the use of a firearm, per the BJS links provided. Your assertions remain unconvincing, but they are clearly yours.


I don’t know the relevance of the first sentence. Yes, it is more common for someone to commit a crime without a gun than with a gun. How is that relevant?

If you don’t understand the difference between federal and state prosecution (which, apparently you do not based on your belief that it is just a matter of severity) then yes, I can see how it would be unconvincing. To anyone who understand the two court system, it shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.



Prove the benefit to making it illegal. Saying it has benefit doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't begin to address the cost (dollars and non-dollars) involved. We can review statistically some of the positive and negative impact of the current NICS check, using 2005 data, as shown in Post #89 - I think it only fair to show the impact of extending the NICS check into a universal check.

There have also been a fair number of suggestions in this thread that stolen guns and other currently illegal transfers are a significant contributor to the misuse of firearms by prohibited persons, and I'm sure that it would be useful to know how a UBC addresses that issue.

First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?

Second, as I have said before, UBC will do nothing to prevent stolen guns. If you want a magical law that solves every problem with one stroke of the pen, you will need to look elsewhere. You can always list more creative and innovative ways that criminals can get guns and we will never eliminate every possible method and yes, you can list more methods than I will take the time to respond to. That does not mean that passing UBC would not significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal circulation and improve public safety.

As quoted from post #71:

Second, people will break laws all day long, every day, all year if they feel little to no risk of being caught or punished.

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

If you make the sale illegal and easily prosecuted, then individuals who currently would be willing to give a gun to a criminal (b/c there is low risk of prosecution) will now have a higher risk of prosecution ad they will be less likely to break the law. Currently straw sales have a low risk of prosecution, so there is little deterrent effect for someone who might consider breaking the law.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 08:26 PM
If you don’t understand the difference between federal and state prosecution (which, apparently you do not based on your belief that it is just a matter of severity) then yes, I can see how it would be unconvincing. To anyone who understand the two court system, it shouldn’t be that difficult to understandThe issue was whether an analysis of Federal firearm crime data taken from Federal prisons was relevant to the discussion regarding violent crime in general. Other than pointing out the superficial differences in jurisdiction, you've done nothing to further the notion that the firearms data from the Federal system has no bearing on the larger gun control issue. Continuing to assert 'But it's different, and you're a ninny if you don't get it!' doesn't actually answer the mail - crafting an actual argument that shows how it's irrelevant, on the other hand, would be useful. At some point, I'm going to have to assume that you're not actually interested in crafting a defensible position as much as you just want to be seen as winning.

If you make the sale illegal and easily prosecuted, then individuals who currently would be willing to give a gun to a criminal (b/c there is low risk of prosecution) will now have a higher risk of prosecution ad they will be less likely to break the law. Currently straw sales have a low risk of prosecution, so there is little deterrent effect for someone who might consider breaking the law.But you've dodged the effort to quantify the benefit and quantify the impact. Much like the 'war on drugs' created second and third order effects, so too will a UBC. Your unwillingness to analyze those potential effects, for good and ill, does not make your position any stronger.

You keep repeating that the UBC will reduce the flow of guns to prohibited persons - I suggest that you try to explain by how much the flow of firearms to prohibited persons will be inhibited, the expected resultant increase in public safety caused by that inhibition, by what mechanism will it be implemented, by what mechanism will it be enforced, what penalties will be enacted to punish non compliance, and what will be the expected or allowable error rates associated with the UBC?

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 08:29 PM
First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 08:33 PM
Also, did you read the suggested reading that outlines the basic differences between federal and state courts?

plodder
January 29, 2014, 08:44 PM
Quote from OP:
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.

I usually don't respond or react to totally asinine, ignorant and misguided statements and points of view.........but I guess I just did:banghead::fire:

vamo
January 29, 2014, 09:00 PM
To the OP. The thing is while BG checks might not be the biggest inconvenience in the world and doesn't really keep anyone that can legally buy a gun from doing so you must realize gun control is a war of attrition. And BG checks are low hanging fruit. When they pass and the next mass shooting still happens they'll be asking for something else. Make no mistake the goal is no more guns in civilian hands, but something like that can't be passed overnight.

rbernie
January 29, 2014, 09:01 PM
First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?My analysis of the 2005 NICS data revealed that the sum total of NICS rejections was less than 2% of all attempted transactions (131900 rejections in total), that the ATFE considered prosecution of 14% of the Federal rejections, and that less than 2% of the potential prosecutions resulted in an actual conviction for violation of a Federal firearms law of some type. Of those 67k Federal rejections, almost 10k (extrapolated) were later adjudicated to have been in error. The number of rejections that were in fact erroneous but not appealed (and therefore not identified as erroneous) is unknown.

The primary effect appears to be that 131k potentially prohibited persons were unable to get a firearm by known legal means, and that 135 of those folk were 'convictable' of an offense related to their effort to obtain a firearm. The second order effect is that almost 10k people were proven to have been incorrectly denied a Constitutional right, to some end unknown. The effect of these rejections upon the use of guns in the commission of a violent crime is not reflected in any measurable reduction in violent crime between, say, 2005-2007, and cannot be inferred or intuited at the macro level. The number of NICS rejected individuals that subsequently obtained a firearm illegally is unknown (unless you accept the Federal data that I suggested and extrapolate an inverse or find State level alternatives). The number of rejected individuals that obtained a firearm and used it in the commission of a violent crime is similarly data constrained, as is the number of instances of the use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in which the firearm was legally obtained.

That represents what I think is knowable.

I suppose that my macro conclusion is that the actual measurable benefit is the 135 prosecutions, weighed against close to 10,000 incorrect denials of a Constitutional right. Any other benefit that might have accrued from the NICS rejections is unmeasurable and subject to speculation UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT OR PRODUCE DATA SHOWING THE STATISTICAL LINK BETWEEN A NICS REJECTION AND A SUBSEQUENT AND PROSECUTABLE ILLEGAL PERSONAL TRANSFER.

zorro45
January 29, 2014, 09:04 PM
We have a fair number of small states with 2 Senators each and a conservative electorate.
These guys know they will not get elected if they contribute to further erosion of 2A.
Once you get beyond the Northeast, Chicagoland, and California, the rest of the US is pretty gun friendly. The machine politicians have proven their complete inability to maintain law and order in the major cities in the aforementioned regions, and where there is a relatively low crime rate (N.Y.C.) this is with a tremendous offsetting reduction in civil liberties/personal freedom. I believe this is why Federal legislation has not been forthcoming. There has been a lot of unhelpfull rule-making and administrative hassle for the average gun store/gunsmith/small manufacturer. This has not yet destoyed the Second Amendment. I do not think compromise is the way to go here. I am afraid many silent gun owners do agree with our original threadstarting member.

bhesler
January 29, 2014, 09:41 PM
Not long ago, I used to think along the lines of the OP. After the Sandy Hook shooting, I had a foolish hope that there would be a rational discussion of the root causes of the shooting and solutions to prevent similar events in the future. Then came the same old laundry list of gun control proposals that either did not work in the past, or had nothing to do with the shooting.

I have realized that the anti's are not willing to give up anything in a compromise, so I feel that we should not offer to give anything up. The only way I would consider supporting anything would be to get something big in return.

bldsmith
January 29, 2014, 10:00 PM
Gun owners have flexed enough. It has been the gun owner who has had to put up with laws prohibiting ownership of type guns in some cities. Or the federal ban on misunderstood class 3 weapons and attachments. It's funny how hunters in many European countries, even England, require the use of suppressors while hunting. This even though they don't allow general ownership of many firearms by the mass public.
I too used to think no big deal. BG check don't make that much difference, I don't need a 30rd mag, why own an ar style rifle? That was before I saw what was really going on. Having lived in Ca most of my life I did not know any better. Once I moved to a rather gun friendly state I saw the light. I will not acquiesce to these ineffective laws any more. Not without getting involved. My rights are way more important than someones feelings.

JRH6856
January 29, 2014, 10:05 PM
Existing federal firearems law has been consistently successful in doing only one thing: Infringe on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Time to start over.

Here is a reasonable compromise on gun control. Repeal all federal firearms laws currently on the books, returning us to status quo ante 1934. Then, once we have a level playing field, lets talk about reasonable, common-sense, and Constitutionally compliant policies to deal with real problems.

Pizzapinochle
January 29, 2014, 11:26 PM
You go through all that analysis and explanation but completely ignore the primary purpose and benefit of mandatory background checks at FFLs.

Prohibited persons with felony can't buy guns at FFLs. Criminals know it, so they don't attempt (as indicated by your data) to buy guns at FFLs. This is the deterrent effect of the law. The purpose of NCIS and background checks is NOT to catch criminals trying to buy guns. it is to prevent criminals from buying guns at FFLs and it seems to be doing a darn good job of it.

Big_John1961
January 29, 2014, 11:31 PM
Quote:
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Ahh, the fallacy of "extraordinary times." It is often hard for people to see beyond the few short years they themselves have been paying attention to the goings-on of the world and understand that a) there is really nothing new under the sun, and b) the founding fathers certainly DID write a governing document for the ages -- to stand in all times and under all conditions.

Because they understood history far better than you do. They were students on a level that is hard to adequately describe to most folks today. They were educated in history, philosophy, comparative government, civics, and the good and bad of mankind from a very young age and continued that constant study and exploration through the founding of our nation and beyond. These were men who founded universities and, not to put too fine a point on it, donated THE Library of Congress from their own private collections. Stop and think about that before you elevate yourself to imagine that you understand the world better than they.

So no, they didn't see an assault rifle. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with military weapons could do, and chose to write the 2nd Amendment.

No, they didn't see a television or the internet. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with the ability to communicate to large numbers of people could do, and chose to write the 1st Amendment.

Quote:
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level.
Baloney.

Quote:
A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
So you are for universal background checks, AND are actually FOR registration of firearms?

Let me put this clearly: I am 100% opposed to these things in every way. It seems clear that you must have seen every argument against them and failed to understand their importance. If that's going to be your direction, I wish you failure in your efforts, and know that I'll fight you and those you support every single inch of the way. "May your chains set lightly..." as one of those old dead guys you know better than once said.

Quote:
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment
Simply a self-refuting idea. The best way to stop endangering the 2nd Amendment is to repeal GCA'68, and then the NFA'34. That would get us back to 'sanity' because it would put an end to the "object control" distraction that blinds so many to the real problems and solutions of crime and danger in society.

Quote:
... these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
Whoops. There it is again. A LAW that "denys" a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one. We don't usually pretend around here that someone who would HURT or KILL another human being (and what other reason would we have for denying someone a firearm?) will not commit a grave malum in se crime because they're stymied by a minor malum prohibidum crime?

"I won't steal a car, because to do so I'd have to steal a set of keys, and that's bad"...?

"I won't KILL someone because having a gun would be against the law..." Doesn't make sense, when you actually stop and think, does it?

Quote:
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
We already have a quilt-like pattern of laws -- that's the whole federal system, don't you know? -- and the rather unsurprising fact is that the VAST majority of states have decided to have NOTHING to do with the silliness you're advocating.

You seem to be saying, "enact some bad laws, federally, or we'll end up with some bad laws in some states." That hardly makes sense, and isn't a strategy that's worth a plug nickle. Fight. That's the strategy. Fight here, fight there, fight everywhere, and make ... EVERY SINGLE INCH they take cost them dearly in political blood and tears. Just like 2013 saw after Newtown. Let them fight as hard as they can and dash their political capital on the rocks of our resolve and strength! Yeah, they'll make a little splash here or there (NY, CT, CO) but it will cost them their (political) life's blood to buy those tiny victories, and they'll inevitably lose some of that ground they bled for (again, see CO).

Quote:
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
Horse pucky. Resistance to change NATIONALLY will be backed up by resistance to change in the STATES. That's what we're seeing now. Yeah, of course they'll TRY. That's only to be expected. And every time they FAIL, they crawl away weaker than before. Gun control is a losing proposition and its old guard is dying and retiring and fading away. They're spending the last gasps of life on fruitless attempts. It is a HAPPY thing to watch.

Quote:
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year.
The rates of gun accidents already the lowest ever continue to fall despite more guns being in private hands than at any point in the history of any nation. This is a red herring.

Quote:
Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
Oh, jeeez. The "one is to many" tripe? You never took a statistics class, did you?

Quote:
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.
Oh, we can believe it. You or your pals used to say, "what honest man needs a handgun, or an AR-15?" And, "As long as they don't take my duck gun..." The friend of my enemy is WHO, again
Damn, shootthebreeze, you may as well pack up and go home because you just got OWNED. :D

SilverCat
January 29, 2014, 11:33 PM
Don't budge on any firearm related right, for if they can gain an inch, they will try and take a mile the next time around.

My greatest fear is not that the government will suddenly invoke extreme laws that strip us of every right, but that these rights will slowly deteriorate, so that no one notices, and no one fights it....
Remember, put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but if you can slowly turn up the heat, then the frog is fried....

Big_John1961
January 29, 2014, 11:42 PM
...Convinced of this, the whole country stripped that one minority group of ALL their rights. Yes, guns were included in that, but it wasn't a general gun control campaign for all of Germany...
*Whew* So,it was only the 6 million murdered Jews who had their gun rights stripped. Because of your enlightenment, I'm sure their families and the Jewish community at large will now have a much more positive take on the Holocaust. :rolleyes:

RPRNY
January 29, 2014, 11:49 PM
Remember, put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but if you can slowly turn up the heat, then the frog is fried....

Boiled.

JRH6856
January 29, 2014, 11:55 PM
Cooked, either way. :rolleyes:

Ignition Override
January 30, 2014, 12:14 AM
shootingthebreeze:
I barely skimmed over the original comments. I request your patience, if these three question have already been asked:
How would a new bill, which requires the seller in each new private gun sale to undergo a background check, actually Force criminals and other gun thieves/fences to Also undergo a background check?

Are many of the people who choose to comply (in any US state) with such a new law the people who commit the vast majority of gun crimes?

We already have thousands of gun laws on the books. If violent criminals already complied with those laws, even just the spirit, they would not be violent criminals, would they?

Is it clear that one of the objectives of federal bureaucracies and many politicians is to simply increase control over Everything?
This is how they justify their titles, growing payrolls paid for by taxes, and larger budgets.
Only one example: the ATF has made many random and very arbitrary decisions in order to use Exert such random control at their whim, to justify its huge size and appetite for more power (this can increase its budget). And people want it to have even More power....but when did career criminals care about this?

coloradokevin
January 30, 2014, 01:04 AM
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.

And exactly what do you believe such a private-party background check law would accomplish? As a lifelong shooting enthusiast and a career police officer, I'm telling you that most criminals acquire their guns illegally. Most are stolen, and the ones that aren't are still going to be sold illegally, irrespective of any law to the contrary.

Instead, such a law makes it very difficult to buy or sell guns even with good intentions. Colorado went that route this year, and it's a huge nuisance for gun owners. First, I have to find someone who is willing to transfer the the firearm (an FFL). Most aren't willing to do so because they don't want to have to deal with it… the issue as it was explained to me by a local FFL is that to complete this transaction they have to transfer the gun to the store's ownership, then run a background check on the other party, then transfer it to that person. But, if the person wanting to buy the gun fails the background check, the store then has to charge a background check fee to transfer the gun back to the original owner, and redo the paperwork to transfer the firearm again. While this rarely happens, many shops just don't see a reason to incorporate these transfers into their business model.

Beyond that, the parties wishing to exchange the gun still have to pay whatever transfer fee the FFL wants to require ($50+ in many cases), along with the state mandated background check fee ($10). So, suddenly buying a used .22lr for $100 isn't practical, as that gun now costs $160. That's not even to mention the fact that this ridiculously bureaucratic process has still done NOTHING to stop the illegal acts of violent criminals. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE.

As for your mention of registration, that's just a bad idea overall… whether you're talking of a "one time registration" or a "re-registration". Frankly, it's nobody's business to know what firearms I own. I recognize that you disagree with me on this point, but before you decide to dig your heels in for that argument, I'd challenge you to answer this one question:

What possible purpose does registration of firearms serve other than to facilitate the ability of some entity in a position of authority to someday take those firearms away from you?

Now, in considering that question, please also consider the actual purpose and scope of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and the reason that it was included in the Bill of Rights (hint: it isn't about hunting, recreational shooting, or any other similar activities. It isn't even about home defense).

I'm honestly not trying to pick on you here, and I can sympathize with your questions. At one point in my life (in my younger years) I was starting to believe that the "reasonable restrictions" group had it right. Then I later realized that those who are most loudly seeking "reasonable restrictions" aren't trying to be reasonable at all… they're mostly anti-gun activists who are trying very hard to rid our country of all guns, piece by piece, by taking just as much as they can possibly get at any one time.

Here's a scenario for you to consider in two different ways:

You buy an AR-15 from an acquaintance, which is arguably the most popular and commonly purchased rifle in America these days. Ownership of this firearm fits clearly within the definition that any reasonably scholar would see in the 2nd Amendment, and this ownership would also be supported by the "common use" explanation that was included within the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia.

Scenario 1:

You live in a state with no gun registration, and no person-to-person background check requirement. At some point in the future the government decides to outlaw your AR-15, which you legally purchased and never used for any unlawful purpose. This new law does not contain a grandfathering provision, and simply outlaws your firearm (this has happened in some states already). You decide to keep your rightfully owned property, in spite of the law. What happens? Nothing.

Scenario 2:

You live in a state with mandatory gun registration, and mandatory background checks for person-to-person sales. At some point in the future the government (Federal or state, your pick) decides to outlaw this firearm, which you legally purchased and never used in any unlawful way. You decide to keep your rightfully owned property. The state later serves you an official letter that essentially orders you to turn over this property, or face criminal charges. Since your gun is registered, there's no escaping this attempt to take your gun; you either turn it in, or lose your freedom.

Now, I'll admit that I have a great appreciation for the law-abiding people in this country (I'm in law enforcement, after all). So, I can understand if you might say "well, I wouldn't keep my gun if it was unlawful to do so". That's fine, and I'll leave that up to your personal discretion. But, assume that the above-mentioned scenario was playing out in a different time in our nation's future, with more severe political implications. Lets assume that this scenario is playing out at an unfortunate time in our future where our government has failed to serve its citizens properly, and has begun to usurp power well beyond the authority that our citizens ever intended to give it. Assume we've started to fall into the quagmire that Germany did in the 1930's, or any other country has just before a civil war. Now, imagine that you are at this critical point (perhaps only point in our nation's history where the 2nd Amendment has actually mattered), and you are about to be forcibly disarmed. This hypothetical (and seemingly far-fetched scenario under today's America) is probably one of the biggest arguments for avoiding gun registration, at least if you value the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Clearly our country isn't in that situation at the moment, but there's no guarantee that we won't possibly find ourselves in that situation at some point in the future.

Keep your rights intact, and don't let the anti-gun crowd convince you that we're making things safer by putting restrictions upon lawful gun owners.


EDITED TO ADD:

As for your concern about new laws constantly being introduced, I'd argue that the way to counter this trend is not through appeasement. Here in Colorado we recalled three sitting state senators who failed to protect our rights during the last legislative session. In this state's entire history there had not been even a single successful recall of a state lawmaker prior to 2013, and three legislators fell in that year alone (Giron, Morse, and Hudak), all due to their desire to restrict our gun rights. We didn't give them an inch, they still tried to take from us, and I think they'll think long and hard before they try this again. I also think there will be a wind of change sweeping through the state legislature during the next election cycle.

rbernie
January 30, 2014, 08:29 AM
Prohibited persons with felony can't buy guns at FFLs. Criminals know it, so they don't attempt (as indicated by your data) to buy guns at FFLs. This is the deterrent effect of the law. The purpose of NCIS and background checks is NOT to catch criminals trying to buy guns. it is to prevent criminals from buying guns at FFLs and it seems to be doing a darn good job of it.Ah - now we get to the meat of the matter. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act tries to prevent prior convicted felons and other such prohibited people from buying guns at FFLs, based upon the assertion codified by law in 1968 that these kinds of folk could not be trusted with guns.

One data point that suggests that the underlying premise is faulty is the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm). Examining the violent crime rates from 1961 (the start of recorded data) through 2012 shows that we're currently enjoying the same murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate as was enjoyed prior to 1968. In fact, if you look at the curve (as many have done), I will suggest that the single biggest needle swingers in the violent crime rate in general and the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter specifically has been the War On Drugs and the economy. There is no possible way at the macro level to correlate the govermental policy disallowing convicted felons, as an example, access to firearms with any actual change in behavior, e.g. reduction in the rate of violent crime. Public policy with no observable benefit IN DATA is bad public policy, and calling it 'common sense' doesn't make it any less bad.

The Federal data that I cited and that you rejected suggested, among other things, that the vast majority of violent felons convicted of Federal felony charges were prior (non-felonious) offenders. That might suggest that the GCA 1968 definition of 'prohibited person' is itself fundamentally flawed, and that in fact a better check might be for a multiplicity of prior offenses rather than a singular felonious offense.

But it gets worse. The War On Drugs suddenly made a whole new class of non-violent felons out of drug users, all of whom are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, all without any direct causality between violent crime and their use of recreational pharmecuticals. The War On Domestic Violence is currently doing the same, via treatment of misdemeanor DV convictions (which are unevenly defined across the states) as disqualifying events. The next step is the War On Mental Health, knocking on our door as we speak, in which more money will be spent trying to re-define the approriate level at which somebody is defined as a danger to themselves or others for the purposes of removing the constitutional right the keep and bear arms (instead of, you know, actually spending the money expanding treatment options).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/25/vermont-woman-held-against-will-in-psych-ward-ordered-released/

And, in the end, cutting off one source of supply of contraband simply causes those desiring the contraband to seek other means - lawful purchases become unlawful purchases, but the purchases do not magically stop. The source of supply for the contraband is completely orthogonal to the underlying root causes of the harmful behavior. Despite Prohibition, for example, people did not stop drinking. Despite the WoD, people didn't stop using recreational pharmaceuticals. Despite having defined almost EVERYTHING as contraband, I can still buy drugs, sex, and dang near anything else that I want inside a prison. And this gets the point that Sam and others have tried to make - there is no way to change human behavior by regulating objects, and allowing the Government to try at it simply causes unintended effects that are usually quite harmful to the governed. Asking the Government for safety by labeling as contraband the tools that can be used for destruction is historically a fools errand. It never achieves its goals (behavioral modification within the society) and it disrupts or prevents constructive use of those same tools.

The reason that the NICS statistics and the Federal prison data and other datapoints are useful is to allow us to look at the dynamics of the public policy and its primary and secondary effects. After all, public policy is supposed to be about balancing the rights of the individual against the needs of the many. In the US, the rights of the individual are carefully enumerated in the Constitution to ensure that, at no point in the future, do the needs of the many drown out the innate 'natural' rights of the individual.

In my opinion, the NICS check has shown no actual societal benefit - measured not by the number of denials, since I consider that an effect of unknown actual value, but by having actually made the streets safer via correlation between the premise that felons should not have guns and a reduction in crime committed by prior felons. On the other hand, it has been shown to have a very real harm to many folk.

Why would I want to further and expand that public policy?

RPRNY
January 30, 2014, 08:53 AM
^^^^^^ is a very good post from a content perspective and well written. Your conclusion is pithy and weighty. I hope you are an active spokesperson in the RKBA movement.

CoalTrain49
January 30, 2014, 09:03 AM
I agree with most of what you said. But, I have to disagree with this idea. States should independently regulate the right to keep and bear arms as much as they should independently regulate slavery, segregation, or religious freedom. The free and legal exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights should not depend on where you live.

In theory you are correct. But you also have to realize that control to some degree will be exercised for just about all of your "freedoms". I have 1A freedom of speech but if I post something against the rules on this forum it disappears. Have my constitutional rights been violated because what I posted was censored? I would have to say yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and I don't think the supreme court is going to hear my case. Mormons believe polygamy should come under the heading of religious "freedom" but in all states it's illegal. In some states it's a felony.

In the real world all of these freedoms that you claim you are supposed to have don't exist. Some of them haven't existed for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that the fed is going to give you the "freedom" of owning a firearm if you are a convicted felon. It doesn't say anything in 2A about convicted felons, it just says you have a RKBA.

So all of our real freedoms evolve with the passing of time. I legally carry a concealed weapon. My grandfather couldn't. 2A says you have a right. The fed and your state will define that right. The only thing you can do is vote and see if you can out spend the folks that want to define your right differently. The constitution means very little, it's about time and money these days.

Robert
January 30, 2014, 09:23 AM
The first paragraph of your post is invalid. Your 1st Amendment rights do not apply here because this is private property. Rights are only protected from government infringement. Wither you like it or not Constitutional right do not come into play between private parties.

shootingthebreeze
January 30, 2014, 10:23 AM
RPRNY good post and thank your good points.
I'm still reading the posts and again thank you all for expanding on the subject in a civil way which actually helps me understand this very complex issue. The Second Amendment is not complex is says in clear language what is complicated is our society and the changes within it since the Second Amendment was written.

JRH6856
January 30, 2014, 12:15 PM
Wither you like it or not Constitutional right do not come into play between private parties.

Unless the violation of another's rights can be styled as a hate crime.

JN01
January 30, 2014, 04:26 PM
I didn't cite Kellerman, I cited a publication of the APA that has a quote from Kellerman in it.

The NRA HAS worked to suppress research into gun injuries and gun violence. This is not some wild conspiracy theory, it is something the NRA is proud of and the congressman who authored the bill has said he was working "as the NRA’s point person in Congress."

The truth is, the NRA does not want there to be any research on gun violence. They don't think they would like the results, so they try to prevent it.

Also, if the CDC is "junk science," then I guess we need to scrap most everything they have taught us about disease prevention, workplace safety, causes and prevention of car accidents, treatment for traumatic injuries, food safety, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

You only disagree with the CDC on the one issue you have a passionate emotional attachment to, other than that you probably never give them a thought and would have no problem with 99.9% of what they say.

THe .1% you disagree with probably has more to do with YOU than the quality of the CDC's science.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that everything the CDC did was junk science. Although if you consider what they stoop to in politicizing this one issue, it does make one think about what else might be questionable.

Their darling, Arthur Kellerman, produced several "studies" to support the CDCs agenda that all guns are bad and need to be gotten rid of. Kellermans MO is cherry picking data sets (certain cities/time frames/etc), confusing correlation with causation, ignoring any data that does not support his thesis, making apples and oranges comparisons, and it seems, sometimes just making things up (we don't know because he doesn't like to release his data for review).

Is that what passes for quality research?

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

So the NRA successfully helped push the defunding of dishonest studies in the instance you referred to. Anything else to support your statement that they don't want ANY research? They seem to like the work of Gary Kleck, Joyce Lee Malcolm and others who stand up to peer review scrutiny much better than the likes of Kellerman.

rbernie
January 30, 2014, 04:59 PM
Some interesting reading with regard to the observable link between violent crime and guns/gun control:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Arkansas Paul
January 30, 2014, 05:23 PM
The Second Amendment is not complex is says in clear language what is complicated is our society and the changes within it since the Second Amendment was written.

Why apply that to the 2nd Amendment only?
The 1st Amendment is not complex either but now we have radio, television and the internet. Should freedom of speech not be applied to those. After all, the founding fathers couldn't foresee that?

gym
January 31, 2014, 12:48 AM
We have clarified the reasons so many times prior to this that we should either put up a sticky "why we don't negotiate our rights", or refer the op ,or ops to the literally hundreds of similar posts all of which have the same basic information in them.

shootingthebreeze
January 31, 2014, 10:43 AM
You made a good point yes I agree many criminals use firearms which are stolen. That I agree. One step, however, is responsible firearm ownership which includes a very important thing: physical security. I'm sure you know about physical security of weapons. Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.
That's something all of us can do. I have 2 layers of security thus very difficult if not impossible to access my firearms. If I carry I have physical control of the firearm at all times.

JRH6856
January 31, 2014, 12:00 PM
You made a good point yes I agree many criminals use firearms which are stolen. That I agree. One step, however, is responsible firearm ownership which includes a very important thing: physical security. I'm sure you know about physical security of weapons. Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.
That's something all of us can do. I have 2 layers of security thus very difficult if not impossible to access my firearms. If I carry I have physical control of the firearm at all times.
Are you suggesting that crime victims should be prosecuted for being victims?

tarosean
January 31, 2014, 12:20 PM
Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.

Harder but never impossible...

rbernie
January 31, 2014, 12:48 PM
Are you suggesting that crime victims should be prosecuted for being victims? This topic comes up a lot here, usually when folk that want to be gun apologists come up short in the traditional 'law-abiding gun owners need to accept more responsbility for the misuse of firearms' arguments and are casting about for ways in which to sustain their misplaced empathy.

I've become a Very Hard Man when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. When I look across the spectrum of how life is instantiated on this Earth and how it evolves and flourishes and survives, I note that in all successful ecosystems, there is one basic truth - individual decisions have consequences, and decisions that cause direct harm to others in the community are addressed as such.

Spreading the blame for bad decision making from the principal actor towards second- and third-order actors is the sort of muddled thinking that some folk engage in to deflect or defer personal responsibility for their decisions and actions, and that others accept out of a misplaced sense of empathy. Sadly, I fail to see how our society benefits from accepting and promulgating such an approach. It certainly helps the individual - it lessens the impact of responsbility - but in doing so society as a whole loses the ability to identify and hold accountable the root behavior that is dangerous to the community.

If somebody steals a car and uses it to mow down a bunch of nuns carrying rescued kittens to safety, the car owner is not responsible for the death of those nuns and kittens - EVEN IF THEY LEFT THE CAR UNLOCKED. They may be viewed as UNWISE to have left the car unlocked, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for the decision making that led some miscreant to commit theft and criminally bad driving. It is reasonably easy to articulate that the poor decision-making that was the menance to society was the product of the thief and not the car owner. Even as muddled as our civil laws may be in this area, our criminal laws still support this notion at the most basic level.

Why would we accept a differing position for firearms?

Arkansas Paul
January 31, 2014, 12:58 PM
rbernie, I agree almost 100% with you.
The actions of criminals should not be construed to be the fault of someone else.
It shouldn't matter if your guns aren't locked in a safe as far as criminal liability. Someone else's criminal actions are just that.

The only time I think there should be any criminal charges is when a firearm is left out where a small child gets ahold of it and has a terrible accident. Even then, it should be thoroughly investigated as to whether negligence took place.

rbernie
January 31, 2014, 01:09 PM
Concur, but I am compelled to point out that anyone under 18 is already the legal responsibility of their guardians - until we legally decide that we wish to view the child as an adult because we wish to levy an adult-sized punishment upon them for their egregious misbehavior or the parents want to otherwise divorce themselves from the responsibility for behavior of their offspring. One area of US law in which I believe we have an unsafe amount of ambiguity is in how we define 'child' and/or 'minor'.

For some crime statistics, anyone under the age of 27 is considered a child. For most legal purposes, it's 18 but for others its 21. It's hard to say at what age a child could be considered 'gun safe', and I'd sure hate to try to codify that distinction in law.

I have three children, and I behave as if I'm legally responsible for their well being and everything that they do. That seems just about right to me.

RPRNY
January 31, 2014, 05:25 PM
This topic comes up a lot here, usually when folk that want to be gun apologists come up short in the traditional 'law-abiding gun owners need to accept more responsbility for the misuse of firearms' arguments and are casting about for ways in which to sustain their misplaced empathy.

I've become a Very Hard Man when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. When I look across the spectrum of how life is instantiated on this Earth and how it evolves and flourishes and survives, I note that in all successful ecosystems, there is one basic truth - individual decisions have consequences, and decisions that cause direct harm to others in the community are addressed as such.

Spreading the blame for bad decision making from the principal actor towards second- and third-order actors is the sort of muddled thinking that some folk engage in to deflect or defer personal responsibility for their decisions and actions, and that others accept out of a misplaced sense of empathy. Sadly, I fail to see how our society benefits from accepting and promulgating such an approach. It certainly helps the individual - it lessens the impact of responsbility - but in doing so society as a whole loses the ability to identify and hold accountable the root behavior that is dangerous to the community.

If somebody steals a car and uses it to mow down a bunch of nuns carrying rescued kittens to safety, the car owner is not responsible for the death of those nuns and kittens - EVEN IF THEY LEFT THE CAR UNLOCKED. They may be viewed as UNWISE to have left the car unlocked, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for the decision making that led some miscreant to commit theft and criminally bad driving. It is reasonably easy to articulate that the poor decision-making that was the menance to society was the product of the thief and not the car owner. Even as muddled as our civil laws may be in this area, our criminal laws still support this notion at the most basic level.

Why would we accept a differing position for firearms?

Great post! Cogent, eloquent and conclusive.

coloradokevin
February 1, 2014, 04:37 AM
You made a good point yes I agree many criminals use firearms which are stolen. That I agree. One step, however, is responsible firearm ownership which includes a very important thing: physical security. I'm sure you know about physical security of weapons. Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.
That's something all of us can do. I have 2 layers of security thus very difficult if not impossible to access my firearms. If I carry I have physical control of the firearm at all times.

Actually, your mention of physical security brings up another interesting point. Some states (CA, for example) require that guns are stored in a certain manner, otherwise the owner of the firearm may face criminal charges when the guns are stolen and used in crimes. Personally, I think that's a bit absurd in its own right, short of outright negligence on the part of the gun's lawful owner.

As a cop who formerly worked as a banker, I'm well aware of the fact that ANY security system/setup is only buying time. Even bank safes/vaults can be breached given a properly equipped thief with enough time to do so. Home security systems and safes are usually far less effective at stopping an attack. As such, I don't like the idea of creating laws that box gun owners into bureaucratic corners from which they must operate.

For example:

I have one gun "safe" at my house that wouldn't stand up to a very serious attack (more of a gun locker than anything). It may not even be a legal safe by the standards used in some states. So, I could be considered a criminal if I was in a place like CA and had my guns stolen from this locked steel container. But, all of that ignores other security measures that I have available to me, like:

1) Differing schedules that mean that we almost always have someone in our house (sucks most of the time, but works well for home security).

2) Good doors with deadbolts.

3) Effective outdoor lighting.

4) Good relationships with good neighbors who watch our place (just as we watch their homes).

5) Two large dogs who are very home protective

6) Alarms

7) Gun storage locations that wouldn't be immediately obvious to a burglar.

…and so on.


But, in a place like CA I could be considered a criminal, while the guy with the bare-bones minimum safe, set in plain view behind a picture window in a ghetto home that is often unoccupied and very insecure would be considered "legal". Yet, his/her guns would probably be a lot easier to steal than mine, despite meeting the legal definition of "secure".

Again, I'm certainly speaking in long-winded hypotheticals here, but I'm doing so in hopes of illustrating a point: legislation isn't usually the best way to protect our rights. It simply eliminates options. Ultimately the criminal who steals guns and/or uses guns for unlawful purposes is the only one who is truly responsible for gun crime.

RON in PA
February 1, 2014, 04:57 AM
I wonder if the fellow who started this thread is the current POTUS? Sure do sound like him.

shootingthebreeze
February 2, 2014, 08:38 AM
Coloradokevin, and others relating to physical security-my belief is that is a firearm owner has taken prudent means of securing firearms and if the physical security system is breached and weapons stolen then the firearm owner should not be prosecuted because he/she took prudent means to secure weapons. I agree that any security system buys time that I learned in the US Army basically physical security slows down access. In some cases of an arms vault the break in process would be slowed down a lot. Arms vault aside, physical security will slow down break ins in the hope the perps get caught in the act. I have a safe and ADT. 2 layers. Any firearm I carry is in my physical control at all times. Response by police to a breach to the ADT system is very fast in our community.
One thing too that I can suggest is if you don't have something solid to bolt your safe to (like small safes) get one of those fughgetoubit NY chains and lock it to something VERY heavy. Another Army trick secure something to a heavy object like in the field, chain the classified safe to a tank or howitzer.
But no, if someone has taken prudent measures to secure weapons then prosecution should not happen. Carelessness is another thing.

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 08:56 AM
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level.
That "tsunami" is a tempest in a teacup. Anti-gun laws are being enacted in small numbers, in places where you'd expect them to be.

On the other hand the rights of gun owners are being protected in more and more states. Even Illinois has concealed carry now. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is currently whining about a law to allow the use of suppressed firearms for hunting here.

"Sane firearms laws"? That sounds to me like "sane slavery laws" or "sane anti-sodomy laws". "Sane" always seems to equal "repressive, harmful and malicious".

The AHSA agenda is even less popular now than it was when AHSA finally keeled over and died.

As always, my answer is: "NO, I REFUSE."

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 08:59 AM
This is the deterrent effect of the law. The purpose of NCIS and background checks is NOT to catch criminals trying to buy guns. it is to prevent criminals from buying guns at FFLs and it seems to be doing a darn good job of it.
And therefore, criminals can't get guns?

Maybe we should try that with drugs too...

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 09:14 AM
Gun restrictions for German Citizens were RELAXED under Hitler. German citizens could, and did, own guns. That was never the problem.
Were Jews legally "GERMAN CITIZENS"?

I once had a former BATF(E) agent who wrote a pathetic vanity published book about his "adventures" try to run that scam on me YEARS ago. The funny thing is he refused for WEEKS to answer the above question. When he finally (and inevitably) answered, "no", I simply aked him:

"Why do you support a law which disarmed Jews, but not the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them?"

It's been over ten years without an answer. I'm not expecting one any time soon.

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 09:16 AM
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.
Diane Feinstein's a "gun owner" too...

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 09:19 AM
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution.
Times have changed since the passage of the 13th Amendment. Want to do away with that?

For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today.
I doubt they could envision:

telephones
motion pictures
radio
television
computers
the internet

Want to do away with the 1st Amendment too?

rbernie
February 2, 2014, 10:41 AM
I wonder if the fellow who started this thread is the current POTUS? Sure do sound like him.
No, he sounds like Dick Metcalf - a gun apologist that wants to make public policy on the basis of emotion and the "common sense" that comes from that starting point rather than actually starting at the macro objective.

Deanimator
February 2, 2014, 11:06 AM
No, he sounds like Dick Metcalf - a gun apologist that wants to make public policy on the basis of emotion and the "common sense" that comes from that starting point rather than actually starting at the macro objective.
Back in the '90s, NPR did a week long series on the 2nd Amendment.

Their "pro-gun" spokesman was:

a shotgunner.
stated that he would NEVER own a handgun.
admitted that with sufficient social pressure, he'd give up his SHOTGUNS.

Just as Joe Kennedy thought we should cut a "deal" (ie. SURRENDER) with Hitler, there are "gun owners" today who want us to bow and scrape before Feinstein, Bloomberg and Brady.

The profound unpopularity of this idea with REAL gun owners is demonstrated by the humiliating demise of not one, but TWO anti-gun, supposed "gun owner" groups, the "National Firearms Association" and the "American Hunters and Shooters Association", the former so UTTERLY bogus that not one in five hundred gun owners remembers, or indeed has even heard of it.

The simple fact is that we're WINNING. These people would have surrendered to the Japanese in August of 1945.

shootingthebreeze
February 5, 2014, 11:21 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

Interesting

Pizzapinochle
February 5, 2014, 11:45 AM
I was out for a few days and this thread went all sorts of places, not going to try and catch up, but this caught my eye.

Were Jews legally "GERMAN CITIZENS"?



The answer is no, as of 1935 they were not citizens. That is when they lost their rights to everything (including guns).

As for this load of baloney:

"Why do you support a law which disarmed Jews, but not the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them?"


How in the world do you reach the conclusion that he "support a law which disarmed the jews?"

That is the kind of backwardness that makes it so hard to talk to pro-gun people.

Because I support increased background checks, Deanimator here assumes I support the Nurember Act of 1935 which stripped Jews of their civil rights as German citizens and separated them from Germans legally, socially, and politically and, for good measure, defined them as an entirely different race of people.

FANTASTIC logic there. Really. I am stunned. Clearly my support for moderate increases in gun control in the US in 2014 means that I think the Nazis had some great ideas in 1935.

I've been doing this a lot lately around here... :banghead:

So the answer to your question is... your question crap not worth answering. Ask a real question that doesn't include a false statement about the other persons position and you might get an answer.

Sam1911
February 5, 2014, 11:46 AM
Wow that is interesting! Look how OLD it is!

shootingthebreeze
February 5, 2014, 12:11 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/glaze-gun-control/index.html

Wanted something more recent? There it is.

Sam1911
February 5, 2014, 12:18 PM
LOL! Good one! :) What a hoot!

Guess that's what I get for "ask a stupid question" -- get a stupid answer.

shootingthebreeze
February 5, 2014, 12:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html

Another newer post.

shootingthebreeze
February 5, 2014, 12:23 PM
...google "gun control and gun owners" or "gun control and gun owners not NRA members" you will get new hits on new articles relating to these subjects.

Sam1911
February 5, 2014, 12:48 PM
Sheesh. Bad to worse. I guess some random googling would be more credible but not much more so.

Gawd, huffpo wasn't even trying with that one! What, do they think they speak to an echo chamber of blinkered vacuous uncritical robots who ... Oh... Never mind.

JRH6856
February 5, 2014, 01:05 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...polling-shows/

Interesting

What polling showa is that polls can be constructed to show anything you want. Which makes most polls as credible as the theory that Kennedy was killed by Martians because they wanted to get to the Moon before we did.

1911 guy
February 5, 2014, 04:31 PM
So freedom of speech doesn't cover internet, telephone or radio?

After all, the founding fathers couldn't have imagined those things.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

That's what I think of the argument about the Constitution and the brain dead argument about "evolving document".

kvtcomdo
February 5, 2014, 04:56 PM
I think the founders did a great job crafting the constitution to meet their days needs and ours as well.

My Sig says it all in reference to how I feel about more laws, when the laws of today are not being followed.

I love how terms such as "Sane" or "Common Sense" are always used before one then tries to make me believe that by giving up my rights I will be safer somehow (read sig).

One has a right to ones opinion and I will never say you shouldn't feel the way you do but, giving away ones God Given (not man) rights to armament and self protection is a fools errand and will not end well.

The bill of rights are what they are; not suggestions and were made to keep the government our servant.

My $.02

shootingthebreeze
February 6, 2014, 09:42 AM
JRH6856 partially true. If one source is looked at yes, however if many different sources are examined and they correlate the information then no. In this case, as I googled various sources the information does correlate.

BigBore44
February 6, 2014, 10:57 AM
^^Well, I just Googled the Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." You sir, are advocating another infringement of my Second Amendment Right. Simple, Period.

Oh, and as far as being in control of your gun the whole time you are wearing it? Yeah that's a good one!!! Do you walk around with your 5000lb electromagnetic hand on your holstered pistol? Because otherwise you are only maintaining possession. Not control.

Sam1911
February 6, 2014, 11:05 AM
Ok, I think we've gotten all the possible value out of this exercise that we could have hoped for, and now we're trailing off into repetition.

It is useful to explore these things sometimes, if only just to sharpen up the claws of our debate.

If you enjoyed reading about "Good and Bad" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!