$1000 reward to turn in an illegal gunowner

[Sistema1927]

1) 8th Amendment? What I have proposed is no more "cruel and unusual" than what you find in most of our prisons. Many of them resemble "Animal Farm", and the use of an island exclusively for sexual predators might make prison less "cruel and unusual" for the rest of the population who would then be free from these perverts.

2) Are you under the delusion that the only outlet for firearms is "government approved" vendors such as yourself? Do you honestly think that NICS and 4473's keep criminals from obtaining guns? All that your NICS denial did was to slow down the process for the crook and impose an "infringement" upon the person who was improperly denied.

 

[glummer]

Spreadfire

Yes cigar. please provide specific proof this specific person obtained a firearm somewhere else.

You are the one who claimed to be showing proof, and you haven’t.
Proving that a burglar tried one locked window in your house does NOT prove that he couldn’t get in at another, unlocked, window. Quite the opposite; it suggests he WILL try other windows. If your "customer" was really a criminal, who wanted a gun, he surely would try other sources.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

i think you need to read the question and answer before interjecting something that was not said. the question posed was:

Can you show me one single gun control law that has kept a criminal from obtaining a firearm?

the answer i gave was the Brady NICS check.

i posted some statistics that show:

When the NICS check returns disqualifying information on the buyer, the transfer is denied. During the first seven months of NICS operation, the FBI blocked 49,160 gun sales to disqualified persons, a denial rate of 2.13 percent. The FBI estimates that a comparable number of sales have been blocked by state POCs.

Reasons for NICS denials during the first seven months of operation broke down as follows:

76% - Criminal History for Felony
8% - Criminal History for Domestic Violence
6% - Criminal History for Other (Multiple DUIs, Non-NCIC Warrants, etc.)
3% - Criminal History for Drug Abuse
3% - Domestic Violence Restraining Order

that is 37,361 denials in the first 7 months of the NICS operation due specifically to felons attempting to purchase guns.

i'd say that is a fairly significant number.

we have no data presented that these 37,361 felons went and got a gun elsewhere, either from a private party sale or by stealing one. i have provided proof in 37,361 cases that felons were denied the purchase of a firearm.

now it is your turn to show provide proof that a significant number of those 37,361 felons successfully obtained a gun elsewhere. im not contesting whether or not they did get one elsewhere, but the question posed was to provide one law that kept a criminal from obtaining a firearm.

the answer has been provided.

 

[Sistema1927]

Spreadfire, may your "chains set lightly upon you." Adios.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

spreadfire

i think we can take that as a no

 

[glummer]

“denied the purchase of a firearm” does not mean the same as “kept … from obtaining a firearm”

One could be “denied” a hundred times, and still “obtain” a hundred guns elsewhere.

The question was not about “denial”; it was about “obtaining.”

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Reasons for NICS denials during the first seven months of operation broke down as follows:

76% - Criminal History for Felony
8% - Criminal History for Domestic Violence
6% - Criminal History for Other (Multiple DUIs, Non-NCIC Warrants, etc.)
3% - Criminal History for Drug Abuse
3% - Domestic Violence Restraining Order

that is 37,361 denials in the first 7 months of the NICS operation due specifically to felons attempting to purchase guns.

i'd say that is a fairly significant number.

Yes, that's quite a significant number. Now, would you please post the names and addresses of those 37,361 people so that we may follow up on them and tally how many of them ended up getting a gun in spite of the denial? It would put a whole new light on the situation. Just finding one of these 37,361 people who might have been arrested for a crime using a gun, or simply in possession of a gun, would prove this law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That is the crux of the matter. Aside from the constitutionality of the law, the efficacy of the law is in question as well.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Criminal History For Felony

Well, THAT certainly clears things up.

Cheat on your taxes? Embezzle a bit? DUI too many times? Any of thousands of other arbitrary and invented "felony" crimes?

No guns for you.

Evidently the assumption is "all felons are violent."

Do something really stupid when you were 19? Now it's 30 years later? Now you're raising your family and want to protect them while you're earning the money to put the kids through college?

Bzzzzzt! No guns for you!

Ever been ACCUSED of "domestic violence" (like spanking your kid, yelling at the wife)?

No guns for you.

Now if I were really a bad hombre with evil on my mind, I'm reasonably sure I could score a piece without too much trouble. It might cost me a little more than retail, or I might have to make a devil's bargain to get it, but the channel is certainly there. The number of people shot every month a) in places where you can't own a gun, b) by people who can't own one at all, gives lie to the idea that rules impede this channel at all.

Domestic gun running must be pretty profitable.

Wait! I have an idea! We'll pass another LAW to make it harder for EVERYBODY to get a gun! And since VIOLENT CRIMINALS are certainly part of EVERYBODY then that will keep them from getting guns! BRILLIANT!!!

Aw, damn. Does it hurt a keyboard to puke in it?

 

[crazed_ss]

Evidently the assumption is "all felons are violent."

The assumption is felons arent responsible citizens. It takes a responsible person to legally own and use firearms, therefore it follows that felons should not be able to own firearms since they have proved themselves to be irresponsible.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Arfin

Just make sure you wash your fingers when you're done typing.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The assumption is felons arent responsible citizens. It takes a responsible person to legally own and use firearms, therefore it follows that felons should not be able to own firearms since they have proved themselves to be irresponsible.

Why assume anything? We have courts to prove who is responsible enough to be let out of prison after conviction of a crime. If such a person so convicted cannot be trusted with arms out in society, that person not only should be kept in prison, but MUST be kept in prison.

Woody

 

[crazed_ss]

Just finding one of these 37,361 people who might have been arrested for a crime using a gun, or simply in possession of a gun, would prove this law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The point is not to stop 100% of criminals from getting a gun. The idea is you remove an extremely easy method for them to get a gun. Background checks dont even infringe on your RKBA either.. it simply takes an easy avenue for getting a gun away from criminals and felons and that's about it.
Just because it doesnt stop all the bad guys from getting a gun all the times does not mean it's completely worthless.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Yes, that's quite a significant number. Now, would you please post the names and addresses of those 37,361 people so that we may follow up on them and tally how many of them ended up getting a gun in spite of the denial? It would put a whole new light on the situation. Just finding one of these 37,361 people who might have been arrested for a crime using a gun, or simply in possession of a gun, would prove this law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That is the crux of the matter. Aside from the constitutionality of the law, the efficacy of the law is in question as well.

Woody

Woody,

i provided the answer. if you feel that it is not correct then you need to do your own research. im certainly not going to do the homework for you. i suggest you get to calling NICS. it will probably take awhile for them to provide you with that information.

oh yeah, you'll also need a subpoena for that information anyway. :banghead:

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Cruel & Unusual

I've heard the "cruel and unusual punishment" card played on this one.

"You can't keep them in jail indefinitely because it's cruel and unusual punishment."

Okay.

Think a minute.

Violent or volatile dude with a history of doing evil and hurting people. His "time is up" and it's "time to let him out" into the world of regular folk. Fine. We let him out.

He hasn't been rehabilitated, hasn't been reformed, so he robs a bank and kills two tellers. Or he rapes two women. Or he kidnaps a child.

I would submit that letting him loose in society is cruel and unusual to the members of society who will suffer as a result.

So, you get to choose: apply "cruel and unusual" by keeping a known violent, creepy, heinous criminal behind bars until he's safe to let loose, or visit cruel and unusual horror upon his new victims.

Hmmm. Where did I leave that key . . . ? Darn. Guess we can't let you out, Mr. Murdering Bastard, we lost the key.

 

[crazed_ss]

Why assume anything? We have courts to prove who is responsible enough to be let out of prison after conviction of a crime. If such a person so convicted cannot be trusted with arms out in society, that person not only should be kept in prison, but MUST be kept in prison.

A little idealistic dont you think? Plus you cant keep people in prison indefinitely.

Look up the recidivism rates from criminals. You think these people should just be able to waltz into a gun store and buy weapons? At least when they're forced to illegally buy one on the streets, the cops can bust them for that.

EDIT: and I dont think barring felons from owning guns is unconsitutional either.. the 14th Amendment says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" .. felons are having some of their liberty deprived by not being able to own guns, vote, etc. They have been given their due process of law. Now they get to live with the consquences of their action. Where is it written that incarceration is your only punishment for comitting a crime?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The point is not to stop 100% of criminals from getting a gun. The idea is you remove an extremely easy method for them to get a gun. Background checks dont even infringe on your RKBA either.. it simply takes an easy avenue for getting a gun away from criminals and felons and that's about it.
Just because it doesnt stop all the bad guys from getting a gun all the times does not mean it's completely worthless.

Look up the definition of the word "infringe". You might want to recant.

A little idealistic dont you think? Plus you cant keep people in prison indefinitely.

Yes you can. Ever heard of the life sentance?

Look up the recidivism rates from criminals. You think these people should just be able to waltz into a gun store and buy weapons? At least when they're forced to illegally buy one on the streets, the cops can bust them for that.

That's why those who are violent need to be kept in prison. Besides, why are no felons arrested on the spot when they try to buy a gun fron an FFL?

EDIT: and I dont think barring felons from owning guns is unconsitutional either.. the 14th Amendment says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" .. felons are having some of their liberty deprived by not being able to own guns, vote, etc. They have been given their due process of law. Now they get to live with the consquences of their action. Where is it written that incarceration is your only punishment for comitting a crime?

First, the Fifth Amendment is operative here as well. Secondly, due process can keep them in prison, too. It isn't about punishment, it's about protecting society from them. Some of them even get executed to that end! But, since you brought up punishmnet, why must the rest of society be punished along side of violent felons by being subject to a background check? Keep the criminals who can't be trusted with arms in prison or execute them. There is nothing idealistic about that at all. It's prudent. It is already done to some extent.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[glummer]

ss

Just because it doesnt stop all the bad guys from getting a gun all the times does not mean it's completely worthless.

“It’s not completely worthless.” Wow. There’s an endorsement for you.
It DOES mean it needs to be justified with some sort of evidence. And there is none.
The “if it helps stop one crime” argument is intellectual garbage.
There is even a possibility that it makes matters worse. By creating a black market, you expand the class of people who are, technically, criminals. And that can result in more, real, criminals. As with Prohibition.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

i provided the answer. if you feel that it is not correct then you need to do your own research. im certainly not going to do the homework for you. i suggest you get to calling NICS. it will probably take awhile for them to provide you with that information.

I never said your data are wrong. I was simply asking if you had complete data with the names and dates of all those refused so I could go ahead and do follow-up research. You presented the data originally, are connected with the BATFE, so I assumed you had access to all the data.

One follow-up question: How many of those of the 76% (around 28,500) with a criminal history that includes a felony conviction were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun? The law was written to keep guns out of the hands of felons, was it not?

Woody

If we don't bring back the warmth and light of the Constitution now, it will soon pass beyond the bloodless reach of man's will. B.E.Wood

 

[crazed_ss]

It DOES mean it needs to be justified with some sort of evidence. And there is none.

I believe spreadfire arms posted some data. If you guys choose to ignore it because it doesnt fit your argument, then that's on you.

The “if it helps stop one crime” argument is intellectual garbage.

I never used that argument. I simply said it's not completely worthless. Like I said, the point of the background check isnt to prevent every single bad guy from getting a gun; it's to remove a very easy avenue from them.

I dont believe allowing ex-cons to have guns helps the RKBA at all. When those ex-cons get guns and go back to their old ways, the .gov isnt gonna come down on ex-cons, they're gonna come down on law-abiding owners.. more gun control and more hassle for us.

 

[carebear]

I might point out that prior to the NFA a significant portion of FA's used in crime were not purchased from stores (where they were both legal and available to include Thompsons and Colt Monitors) but were instead stolen from National Guard Armories.

Even when criminals COULD buy guns in stores, with no effective regulation, they for the most part apparently chose not to. You don't get rich in crime by spending money in stores.

The last study I saw put the number of guns used in crime purchased (illegally) at store's in the low single digits. Just as then, guns now are bought from other criminals on the street or stolen.

Gun purchase control has pretty much shown itself to not produce anything resembling positive results to offset the inconvenience to lawful gun owners.

As far as "illegal possession" goes, I don't care what you possess, inanimate objects are inherently harmless. Even evil people are harmless, until they act in a way to hurt others. When that happens, throw the book at them. Trying to prevent it beforehand with anything as pathetically easy to evade as any gun control law on the books today is insulting to any thinking citizen.

The guy in New York with the .38 in his dresser who goes to work every day and doesn't shoot anyone shouldn't be a target for law enforcement. The minute he does hurt someone, then they need to come down on him with all the wrath of an avenging Old Testament diety.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I dont believe allowing ex-cons to have guns helps the RKBA at all. When those ex-cons get guns and go back to their old ways, the .gov isnt gonna come down on ex-cons, they're gonna come down on law-abiding owners.. more gun control and more hassle for us.

Umm - you might want to take a look. ".gov" has already done that!

Use a gun in a crime, see ya in the next life.

Somehow, I can't see any problem with Martha Stewart packin' heat.

Woody

 

[carebear]

Somehow, I can't see any problem with Martha Stewart packin' heat.

I dunno, I hear she's a mean drunk.

I have no problem with allowing someone who has paid the assigned penalty for their crime and has been released (which explicitly means they have been found to be safe to be released) to have full restoration of rights.

If they blow it again, they had their one chance. Hang 'em. If too many are getting out still ready to reoffend, reconsider the choice of initial punishments and conditions for release.

Removing rights on release is a lacksadaisical way of not dealing with the failure to either rehabilitate or retain custody in the first place. No one should be released if there's any significant risk of reoffense. Ensuring the punishment truly fits the crime (non-violent offenses don't get prison time) will ensure plenty of room and resources for long-term imprisonment of the actually violent (thus dangerous to others, thus the only ones we should really care about in a legal system sense).

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

woodcdi,

I was simply asking if you had complete data with the names and dates of all those refused so I could go ahead and do follow-up research.

they dont have that data to give me unless i have a subpoena, which i don't obviously have.

How many of those of the 76% (around 28,500) with a criminal history that includes a felony conviction were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun? The law was written to keep guns out of the hands of felons, was it not?

i dont have the answer to that question.

 

[glummer]

ss

I believe spreadfire arms posted some data.

He posted data that only a weasel/government lawyer would accept.
Read this again:
“denied the purchase of a firearm” does not mean the same as “kept … from obtaining a firearm”
One could be “denied” a hundred times, and still “obtain” a hundred guns elsewhere.
The question was not about “denial”; it was about “obtaining.”
None of the data posted deal with “obtaining.” The data are worthless.

 

[crazed_ss]

Im comfortable with a felon being "denied the purchase of a firearm" from a gunshop as that is the whole point of the system.