An article about where criminals get their guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 17, 2022
Messages
209
Location
Lawton, Ok
The Main Source of Guns Used in Crime is the Black Market • NSSF

Most mass shooters/random-public shooters on American soil get their firearms from FFL's and pass background checks already. Expanded/universal background checks won't address this problem either. Most mass shooters have no criminal or adverse mental health records at the time they get their guns anyway. Most are totally clean until they take their guns into places like Tops and do horrific damage. Many criminals tend to be repeat offenders but the mass shooter of today starring on CNN seems to totally begin his bad-guy career with a shooting spree and also end it right there; he's most often killed (sometimes by suicide) or captured in the end. Rarely ever does a mass shooter flee the scene, make a clean break, to remain at large for any significant amount of time.

Probably most "conventional" armed criminals (bank robbers, dope dealers, liquor-store hold-up men, gangsters, etc.) get their guns from black markets or theft even if they could still pass a background check. They don't want their guns traced to them by serial numbers or such.
 
This is old news. Those surveys came out years ago and would probably still be accurate today with one addition; the proliferation of home made firearms in the hands of crooks, youth and other persons not legally able to possess them.

In the County I work in home made guns (usually Glock pattern) are being found more and more often, to the point where I can comfortably say that they are the crooks’ gun of choice over anything else. Since crooks don’t follow laws anyway, and the idiot voters listened to the hacks who keep trying to decriminalize crime, the penalties are minimal so they keep making more. :(

Stay safe.
 
The solutions (policy proposals) to confront mass shootings are quite different from those that apply to ordinary crimes. Mass shooters are not "criminals"... until they are. It's very difficult to deal with them prospectively without also penalizing perfectly innocent people.
 
The solutions (policy proposals) to confront mass shootings are quite different from those that apply to ordinary crimes. Mass shooters are not "criminals"... until they are. It's very difficult to deal with them prospectively without also penalizing perfectly innocent people.

Still, more anti-gun laws doesn't solve the random public shooter issue. Period. Maybe the system should try issuing American boys some real fathers.
 
The solutions (policy proposals) to confront mass shootings are quite different from those that apply to ordinary crimes. Mass shooters are not "criminals"... until they are. It's very difficult to deal with them prospectively without also penalizing perfectly innocent people.
In cases like Buffalo, Uvalde, etc. you are correct. Planned actions by these first-time on the-radar loonies who buy an AR and plot out their spree are impossible to predict and difficult to stop until innocents are hurt. Soft targets that will garner the most media attention so they “will be remembered” are preferred.

The “mass shootings” in entertainment districts like Philadelphia, Sacramento or at weekend parties, parks, etc. are usually done by handgun-toting idiots who are often long-rap sheet street hoods out with a chip on their shoulders. These are all-too-often scenes where home made Glock-style firearms are used/recovered, as these perpetrators cant legally buy a gun. :(

Stay safe.
 
Gun Owners of America indicates that MOST guns in random public shooting incidents are indeed purchased at FFL's with passing background checks. Most guns are not ill-gotten in these situations. Only the intended purpose for the gun's planned use in the warped brain of a future random public shooter is sickening. A gang war mass killing doesn't count as a "mass shooting" or "public random shooting" in my book. Most seasoned criminals don't shoot unknown persons on the streets just for recreation. There is a motive like robbery or something. Most weapons in these random public shootings are not AR style rifles either. They are usually commercially-made respectable auto handguns. Real Glocks, real Berettas, real H&K's, real Colts and real Smith & Wessons, mostly not ghost guns, Saturday night specials or zip guns. In a few instances, shotguns are used. I think many more AR's in America are used defensively and legitimately than for bad purposes. I don't believe a word the anti-gun camp says, not ever.
 
Last edited:
The weekend shootings probably involve stolen guns or increasingly home-made guns. Requiring serial numbers on guns made at home will not stop the use of these guns in crimes; the serial number has no preventive value (it may be useful in post-crime investigations, but only if the criminal who makes the home-made gun bothers to give it a serial number and then report that number to the ATF and then leave the gun at the scene of the crime).

The answer is to go after the criminals who are found possessing guns or using them in crimes, even minor crimes. Especially minor crimes, if they involve a gun. Those guns and those criminals will be seen again in more serious violent crimes if not deterred or removed from the public. Unfortunately, the people who are involved in starter crimes with guns -- gang members in particular -- are or will be repeat offenders.

Unfortunately, these are "our children" to some people who hope they grow out of their criminal activity and don't want to see them go to jail and get their lives "ruined." These people live in the areas where the crimes tend to take place, their children are often the victims, and they vote mostly for one political party. They often want to defund the police and decarcerate criminals. (Spell Check tells me that "decarcerate" is not even a word, no matter how many times Gascon, Boudin, Soros, et. al use the word).

How do we get those guns off the street? Put more resources into investigating crimes involving guns. Even shootings where no one gets hurt -- because that gun, that shooter, will be involved in a shooting in the future. Get the knucklehead kids who do that activity into some sort of system that will really reform their behavior, not just show them they can lawyer up (at the victims' expense) and beat the rap by pleading it down under some progressive DA and then get back out on the street with no consequences.

One person's opinion.
 
Back in the late 90s and into the early 2000s (not "back in the day"), my ex was a circuit court court reporter, what some call a stenographer. Her testimony back then was that when a criminal would cop a plea, the first charge that was dropped in the plea bargain was the gun charge. What good does it do to have laws if we aren't going to enforce them?

In a recent article in The State Newspaper (Columbia, SC) proclaiming South Carolina was among the top states in the nation for "mass shootings", the local solicitor said "we can't arrest our way out of this problem, we can't prosecute our way out of this problem". With prosecutors like this, who needs a defense attorney?

If we are ever allowed to have the "honest conversation" about gun violence that everyone keeps saying we need to have, we need to lay bare the fact that gang violence kills more people, including young people of color, than true mass shootings/school shootings. But in today's world where equity, inclusion and diversity trump facts, we will never be allowed to have that honest conversation.
 
The weekend shootings probably involve stolen guns or increasingly home-made guns. Requiring serial numbers on guns made at home will not stop the use of these guns in crimes; the serial number has no preventive value (it may be useful in post-crime investigations, but only if the criminal who makes the home-made gun bothers to give it a serial number and then report that number to the ATF and then leave the gun at the scene of the crime).

The answer is to go after the criminals who are found possessing guns or using them in crimes, even minor crimes. Especially minor crimes, if they involve a gun. Those guns and those criminals will be seen again in more serious violent crimes if not deterred or removed from the public. Unfortunately, the people who are involved in starter crimes with guns -- gang members in particular -- are or will be repeat offenders.

Unfortunately, these are "our children" to some people who hope they grow out of their criminal activity and don't want to see them go to jail and get their lives "ruined." These people live in the areas where the crimes tend to take place, their children are often the victims, and they vote mostly for one political party. They often want to defund the police and decarcerate criminals. (Spell Check tells me that "decarcerate" is not even a word, no matter how many times Gascon, Boudin, Soros, et. al use the word).

How do we get those guns off the street? Put more resources into investigating crimes involving guns. Even shootings where no one gets hurt -- because that gun, that shooter, will be involved in a shooting in the future. Get the knucklehead kids who do that activity into some sort of system that will really reform their behavior, not just show them they can lawyer up (at the victims' expense) and beat the rap by pleading it down under some progressive DA and then get back out on the street with no consequences.

One person's opinion.


Getting guns off the street? Why not just get lawbreakers off the street? Stop focusing on inanimate objects but rather human behavior and psychology. Also violent people sometimes use other tools (means, weapons) besides guns. The mere presence of a gun in somebody's home doesn't turn an otherwise good person into a bad person as if by black magic.
 
Back in the late 90s and into the early 2000s (not "back in the day"), my ex was a circuit court court reporter, what some call a stenographer. Her testimony back then was that when a criminal would cop a plea, the first charge that was dropped in the plea bargain was the gun charge. What good does it do to have laws if we aren't going to enforce them?

In a recent article in The State Newspaper (Columbia, SC) proclaiming South Carolina was among the top states in the nation for "mass shootings", the local solicitor said "we can't arrest our way out of this problem, we can't prosecute our way out of this problem". With prosecutors like this, who needs a defense attorney?

If we are ever allowed to have the "honest conversation" about gun violence that everyone keeps saying we need to have, we need to lay bare the fact that gang violence kills more people, including young people of color, than true mass shootings/school shootings. But in today's world where equity, inclusion and diversity trump facts, we will never be allowed to have that honest conversation.

Since when are guns violent? When Timothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City, were the media madly condemning the availability of chemical fertilizer, Ryder trucks and diesel fuel back in 1995? Was there legislation to put truck renters through extensive background checks?
 
The nexus of the "gun violence" problem is the person who has evil intent and gets his (or her) hands on a weapon - be it a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, etc., and finds an opportunity to commit the crime. The gun is just more efficient for killing people than those other weapons. Ultimately it is a problem of a lack of morality on the part of that person. The government does not have any programs within its remit that can make up for a lack of morality in society, so we can only talk about law and policy as ways to deal with "gun violence" around the margins.

If we put murders into categories, there are still a lot of people who get angry at someone they know and fight with them and kill them -- often to their great regret when they sober up or come down off the drugs. Gang violence -- battles over turf, insults, sex, etc. -- are probably the second largest category. Murders during robberies/carjackings/home invasions/insurance scams/etc. are probably a fairly small percentage. "Mass shootings" of innocent and random victims, as in schools and sometimes place of work, are probably a far distant trailing percentage. But in all cases, the nexus is the person who lacks morality and choses to commit the crime with the gun.

We can prevent people who shouldn't have guns (kids, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, etc.) from getting them by applying the laws we have more carefully. We can keep an eye out for the person who is spinning out of control and threatening to kill other people -- although we have to build-in protection with those "red flag" laws so they are not abused. But the criminals who use guns in gang violence and in violent crime for profit can be found out, investigated, arrested, and convicted for any crime related to using a gun -- so as to prevent their using guns in the future in a violent way.

I don't know what we can do about people who are mentally ill and become violent. I suspect the answer is not more social workers, psychotropic drugs, and more counseling. Maybe mental conditioning and the cultural environment are bigger factors than people are willing to admit -- because, after all, they have become toxic to morality. Violent movies, the entertainment ecosphere's culture of glorifying killing other people, violent video games, ADDED: social media, etc., are the 600 lbs. elephant in the room (I read somewhere that the average kid sees 10,000 murders on TV while growing up. Maybe that is too many).
 
Last edited:
Sort of on this theme, I was asked what gun control laws I could support. I came up with three and they closely fit this thread.:
I have been asked what gun-control I could support. First, an assumption in that by the term gun-control, we are addressing laws intended to to address criminal and unintentional misuse of firearms. In addition to this, we may also be speaking of restricting access to firearms by prohibited persons. (ATF)

In a brief overview, I will first Identify a key element of unlawful use of firearms, their unlawful acquisition. I will then look at three possible laws that can address this while not creating new burdons on lawfull members of society.

A little about me, I am very pro gun-owners rights. I see no reason to hide this fact about myself. With that in mind, there are still laws that can address the concerns in the first paragraph and make us all safer while still not interfering with lawful gun owners.

One thing you may notice about the proposals that I make is that, while focused on reducing criminal and unintentional misuse of firearms, these proposals do not create new criminals. There are no new ways to “catch” otherwise lawful members of society who may not be aware of some new law or regulation.

These suggestions are based on a study by the U.S. Department of Justice document, where they state, “An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%).” (Alper and Glaze) In this same document, they go to to describe “the underground market” which they identify as being the source of 43% of firearms used by criminals at that time of their arrest as, “Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.”

The first two proposals deal with storage. However, unlike other “safe-storage” bills, these proposals do not create new criminals.

The first calls for the federal government, as a condition of funding, to require county sheriff departments to provide "no questions asked" firearm storage. A person wants the guns out of the house, they take them to the SO. It could be for depression, visiting family that have a bit o' de *******, or doing some babysitting. . . maybe the self realization that one has a violent temper streak but still likes to go target shooting on weekends, no matter the reason. Drop them off, get a receipt. Want them back, sign them out.

An objection to this proposal is the problem of items being stolen from police storage, by police officers. First, the problem of police criminality is, while admittedly huge, beyond the scope of this proposal. Secondly, this system could incorporate protections that bypass the entire “evidence” room procedures, and the thefts that are well known to occur there. This could include two-key systems, where the firearms owner remains in possession of one of the keys, or combinations, needed to access or release the firearm. There are other methods, however, the criminality of the police should not be used as an excuse for not providing safe storage for people who, for whatever reason, want to temporarily remove a firearm from their home.

The second proposal relates to personal gun safes, and other approved storage devices, and is made possible by modern technology. However, this is currently not possible due to a lack of agreed upon communication format and existing silent alarm laws.

In the case of an unauthorized opening of a firearm safe, or approved storage device, a simple text message with the location of the storage device, and a predetermined call-back number could be sent to the police dispatch office. From there a text or call could be made to the owner and if, based on the conversation or returned text message, there is doubt then a police officer could be dispatched to ensure that a firearms theft was not in progress.

This simple process could be easily facilitated with existing technology and would help prevent firearms from being stolen. As we have already seen, stolen firearms are frequent sources of firearms used in other crimes.

With current SMS technology this would not be an expensive process. It could be funded with an assessment fee on people convicted of possessing stolen firearms in the commission of a crime.

The third proposal addresses a popular concern that, while being so insignificant it does not even appear in Alper and Glaze’s report, it ganners much attention. That is the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals, or the infamous “gun-show loophole.” While Alper and Glaze’s report does mention gun shows as a source of 0.8% of the firearms in the study, this is included in the “purchased/traded at retail source” section as, with almost no exceptions, firearms sold at gun shows are sold by licensed gun dealers and employ standard dealer background checks on all sales.

Because of the reality of gun show sales, without regard for the common public misconception, this third proposal is not focused on those dealer to customer sales, but the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals.

In most states it is unlawful for police to provide confidential law enforcement information to non-law enforcement personnel, for legitimate law enforcement purposes. I would propose that, with the physical presence, and agreement of both parties, and law enforcement personnel be able to provide the results of a simple National Crime Law Enforcement (NCIC) query to both parties before the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals. This is not an unduly burdensome process. NCIC queries are regularly run as a part of routine traffic stops.

These three proposals, safe storage at county sheriff departments, SMS message alerts of potential unauthorized access of private firearms storage devices, and the ability for private parties to engage in a simple verification of the status of both the buyer and the seller would significantly interfere with firearms landing in the wrong hands. It could be expected to reduce crime, accident, and suicide deaths. It would do all this at low cost and without creating any new criminals.



Works Cited

Alper, Mariel, and Lauren Glaze. “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January 2019, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2022.

ATF. “Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives |, 9 January 2020, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons. Accessed 2 June 2022.
 
So..... how does a gun from from being legally manufactured, legally sold to a distributor, legally sold to a gun store, and legally sold to a customer who passes a background check..... to the black market?

There are three possible answers:

  1. Theft. The over-reaching legal solution would be to mandate storage, and punish those who fail to secure their firearms.
  2. Loss. Who's so careless that they just "Woops!" lose a gun? I'm guessing this isn't a big part of the black market supply.
  3. Selling/transferring to someone who is prohibited. Universal background checks, sting operations, and very harsh penalties, could solve a lot of this problem. Catch the repeat straw purchasers, and dissuade the law abiding owners from selling to strangers in parking lots.
The finger pointing to the "black market" is pretty thoughtless, IMO. It doesn't take much critical thinking to figure out where the supply is coming from.

Though there is a 4th potential way guns can now find their way onto the black market, which is the 80% kits that require no BGC to attain. Building 80% kits and selling them to prohibited people sounds like it could be quite lucrative, and it also sounds like it's becoming more popular in criminal circles.
 
Last edited:
I do find it interesting that you address very similar issues to those that I had no my post. We just come at them from a different direction I realize my response is going to sound like I am picking you apart. Please understand that this is done with both good spirit and intentions. That said, I want to make two points before I start:
  1. I do not want to see new restrictions on otherwise lawful gun owners or new "gotcha" laws that turn people, who broke no other law, into sudden felons.
  2. Anti-gun organizations are starting to realize that the firearms used in some mass shootings which, while admittedly rare, garner great attention are lawfully obtained. For this reason, we are offering to surrender last week's hill.
So..... how does a gun from from being legally manufactured, legally sold to a distributor, legally sold to a gun store, and legally sold to a customer who passes a background check..... to the black market?

There are three possible answers:

  1. Theft. The over-reaching legal solution would be to mandate storage, and punish those who fail to secure their firearms.
My concern here is about criminalizing the condition of being a crime victim. It is not too hard to imagine a scenario where one leaves for mass and is arrested while leaving because their house was broken into while out and the criminal found a way to the firearms. The idea that a person can become a felon without action or intent is just ridiculous.

The argument that one should just follow the storage laws ignores the reality that some are crazy impractical, something that is frequently the intent of the authors. Secondly, laws change. So something that may have reflected both good sense and the law might be criminally insufficient when the housebreaker actually arrives.

I am in favour of safe storage. However, I remain opposed to criminalizing the condition of being a victim of a crime.
  1. Loss. Who's so careless that they just "Woops!" lose a gun? I'm guessing this isn't a big part of the black market supply.
Like you, I doubt this happens often. However, I have lost a gun (a Savage 32), so I know how it happens. The last I recall, it was in a drawer in a locked motorhome. Then a few years later I thought about it and realized the door was unlocked. The motorhome was on my father's ranch and he had moved some of my motorcycle stuff into it. I checked and the pistol was not there. Was it stolen? Is that actually where I put it? I really don't know. However, I am still unclear enough about whatever happened to it that I am not willing to say it was definitely stolen. I just don't know what happened to it.

On the same note. before my father died, he wanted me to come and get his Thompson Contender. The reality is that neither of us were able to find it. Yes, as both the recipient of that portion of his estate and the sxecutor, it is mine, but that doesn't mean that I can find it.

All that said, I have definitely changed and standardized my firearms storage procedures. The only gun that is not in one of two safes is my current, as in today's, carry pistol. . . oh wait, there is that crazy long 22 target rifle I got from my father, that doesn't fit in my safe, that is leaning in the closet. . .
  1. Selling/transferring to someone who is prohibited. Universal background checks, sting operations, and very harsh penalties, could solve a lot of this problem. Catch the repeat straw purchasers, and dissuade the law abiding owners from selling to strangers in parking lots.
I doubt this happens as much as the media would like you to think. The only time I ever saw such a thing offered was when I was at a gun show and a person I knew from work, he was the photoshop artist and I was the printer technician, saw me and offered to sell me his SKS. I didn't want it and he returned to plan A, which was to take it in and sell it to a licensed vender.

That said, as I addressed in my paper, in most places it is not practical, or even legal, to do a simple police background check. An NCIC check can be done quickly and is frequently a common component of any traffic stop. Yet it is illegal to receive even that small amount of information when evaluating a potential purchaser.
The finger pointing to the "black market" is pretty thoughtless, IMO. It doesn't take much critical thinking to figure out where the supply is coming from.
In the paper above I reference Alper, Mariel, and Lauren Glaze. “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January 2019, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2022. It is worth looking at.
Though there is a 4th potential way guns can now find their way onto the black market, which is the 80% kits that require no BGC to attain. Building 80% kits and selling them to prohibited people sounds like it could be quite lucrative, and it also sounds like it's becoming more popular in criminal circles.
While the media loved to go on about "Ghost Guns" I doubt this is a large source for several reasons. Most of these reasons have to do with value and cost. Firstly, it frequently costs more to complete an 80% gun than it does to simply retail purchase the firearm that the project is based on. Secondly, a potential purchase would rightly value one of these home-builts less than a professionally manufactured firearm.

So, if obtaining firearms for criminal resale, it would make little sense to do something that is considerably more work, costs more, yet is seen as having less value to the end consumer, the criminal. This would be somewhat the opposite of lucaritive. Further, I am not convinced, by what I have seen, that this is a major component of criminal firearms possession.
 
Last edited:
@Hasaf

I do agree with some of your ponts. However it seems you'd like to believe one thing that to me seem totally illogical.

The idea that people don't sell guns to strangers very often, is what I'm talking about. You don't think private parties buy and sell guns at venues such as gun shows without running the transferee through a BGC? You don't think private parties organize sales through online forums and complete transactions in parking lots? You don't think people sell guns to work colleagues or friends of friends without knowing for certain those people aren't prohibited? It happens all the time. If you don't believe me, just start a poll with a yes/no question: "Have you ever sold a gun to a person that you were not 100% certain could not have been prohibited from possessing a firearm?" Then see what you get.

Now the cost of 80% guns does seem prohibitive, at least for a law abiding citizen, or someone trying to make a profit from building them to sell on the black market. You've got a good point there. But is an 80% build really more expensive to someone who cannot buy a gun legally? Only if they have other avenues to access guns.
 
You know I don't know when it changed but when John Kennedy was shot people did not blame the gun they blamed Lee Oswald.
 
The solutions (policy proposals) to confront mass shootings are quite different from those that apply to ordinary crimes. Mass shooters are not "criminals"... until they are. It's very difficult to deal with them prospectively without also penalizing perfectly innocent people.

Thus the crux of the problem.
I keep commenting where ever I can that the Mentally defective are out there, walking amongst us every day in plain sight. Going unnoticed. Also we have a proliferation of violent thought. The my space has been violated and I need to react impulse. The I've been slighted and I am not going to take it any more.
My view is that some of those commit suicide while others want to commit suicide and take others with them.

My mantra has become, "I have never met a violent gun. Though I have met many a violent person."
 
@Hasaf

I do agree with some of your ponts. However it seems you'd like to believe one thing that to me seem totally illogical.

The idea that people don't sell guns to strangers very often, is what I'm talking about. You don't think private parties buy and sell guns at venues such as gun shows without running the transferee through a BGC? You don't think private parties organize sales through online forums and complete transactions in parking lots? You don't think people sell guns to work colleagues or friends of friends without knowing for certain those people aren't prohibited? It happens all the time. If you don't believe me, just start a poll with a yes/no question: "Have you ever sold a gun to a person that you were not 100% certain could not have been prohibited from possessing a firearm?" Then see what you get.

Now the cost of 80% guns does seem prohibitive, at least for a law abiding citizen, or someone trying to make a profit from building them to sell on the black market. You've got a good point there. But is an 80% build really more expensive to someone who cannot buy a gun legally? Only if they have other avenues to access guns.

As I said to the point of selling guns to strangers. The simple solution is to make it cheap and easy to get a simple background clearance. As in, both parties enter the police station (yes, in-person) pass over their IDs and, in a few moments, the dispatcher passes them back saying NCIC clear. Check the serial number on the firearm (if it is applicable) and return it with the statement, "NTC clear." This is a very low-level background check, it is done at traffic stops, yet we do not allow people trying to sell guns to ask for this same simple check.

No need for new structure, enforcement, penalties, and accidental felons.
 
Scary part is the age and what happens to the firearms.

I just read how a teen was arrested in his graduation gown [Phillipsburg, NJ] after a shooting during a 'teen' confrontation where the other shooter, a 30 something felon was already in custody.

neither gun was recovered...
 
As I said to the point of selling guns to strangers. The simple solution is to make it cheap and easy to get a simple background clearance. As in, both parties enter the police station (yes, in-person) pass over their IDs and, in a few moments, the dispatcher passes them back saying NCIC clear. Check the serial number on the firearm (if it is applicable) and return it with the statement, "NTC clear." This is a very low-level background check, it is done at traffic stops, yet we do not allow people trying to sell guns to ask for this same simple check.

No need for new structure, enforcement, penalties, and accidental felons.

It would be nice to think it could be cheap and easy. But when someone has a sale almost done, and the buyer says "Ah, going to the police station is such a hassle! What if I give you an extra $20 and we don't worry about it?"..... How many people lack the moral fortitude to say "No. I have to be sure you're not prohibited from possessing a firearm."?

We need laws in society, because human nature is often self serving. Many people will not do the right thing when no one is watching. From littering, on up.
 
Yeah but the GCA was in 68 Kennedy was shot in 63 5 years later and the law was a result of his brother being shot down by sirhan sirhan who I now believe is eligible for parole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top