Federal Gun laws passed quickly

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Ryanxia, Jan 15, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    879
    I just find it strange that firearms and ammo businesses were given the label of 'hi risk'. Like what happened to McMillan Group some time ago. Really? Wow.

    It just seems strange to me that those businesses get lumped into the same pile as other businesses, such as payday loan companies, etc.

    On the face of it, it seems like someone is targeting those types of businesses.
     
  2. thirty-ought-six

    thirty-ought-six member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    185
    They are high risk. Especially when gangs sell their weapons, or people try to sell stolen weapons.
     
  3. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    879
    Hi risk for what? I'm pretty sure gangs don't use lines of credit from Bank of America, and I'm also pretty sure people who sell stolen weapons don't use those services either. It seems that companies like McMillan or other legitimate firearm / ammunition businesses are the only ones affected. I believe that some companies that specialize in accessories were also affected if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure gang bangers aren't too worried about fore grips or quad rails.

    And I guess using that logic, we'd better cut the credit and ability to fund ANY business that might deal in products that can be used illegally, like, hmmm, automobiles. I think gangsters use vehicles. At least sometimes. I bet some are even stolen and sold illegally, too. And maybe cell phones, those can be used illegally as well. I'm sure, eventually, we could come up with all manner of things that could be considered 'hi risk'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  4. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    Originally posted by: thirty-ought-six

    Yep. And, so has Obama. If we can excuse one I guess we can excuse another.
     
  5. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,655
    Location:
    Georgia
    What?! :confused:


    BTW: I'm still waiting for your reference/citation/evidence that the NRA fear mongers and has been caught in multiple lies. Pls no opinion pieces in the editorial section of the New York Times where people make completely baseless claims with no evidence.
     
  6. thirty-ought-six

    thirty-ought-six member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    185
    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

     
  7. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,655
    Location:
    Georgia
    A federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms would require a background check for all transfers. Do police not know that?

    Not only that, but...how, exactly, does making that statement qualify as fear mongering to drive gun sales? :confused:

    Because this is how you started down this road:

     
  8. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,907
    Location:
    Arizona
    Background checks do little to stop criminals from obtaining guns, mainly because if they are turned down they can (and do) walk with no further consequences.

    What the gun control advocates really want is to have a 4473 form for every transaction, not just those currently sold through FFL dealers. Until that is in place that can't go forward and do what they really want to do.

    Anyone who thinks that laws can stop criminals (as well as others), from getting something that's controlled or prohibited, should take a hard look at controlled substances. :uhoh:
     
  9. thirty-ought-six

    thirty-ought-six member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    185

    I agree with you 1000%. If they banned guns only the thugs and crooks would have them, and it would leave tons of law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.
     
  10. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,907
    Location:
    Arizona
    That's the whole problem so far as control advocates see it. They're literally millions of firearms here in the USofA that are not recorded in any records. If any national bans were passed those responsible would likely not survive the next following election.

    As matters stand today, they could only confiscate those firearms on which they have a paper trail, and stopping more from being smuggled in would be no more successful then stopping illegal drugs. Wherever they're is a market, with money behind it, criminals will exploit it.
     
  11. tomturkey

    tomturkey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    125
    Location:
    West michigan

    Being an old geezer most of my guns have no paper trail.
     
  12. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,489
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    Wait a minute, hang on just a second. Then you seem to be implying that Jerry of Jerry's Gun Shop, the retired county deputy and honorably discharged veteran and once county trustee is buying and selling stolen weapons from gang bangers? If you have evidence to support this it needs to be turned over to the federal authorities immediately. If not, you have just libeled a very very good man that doesn't deserve it.
     
  13. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    The problem with having no paper trail is that technology exists, and has for quite some time, where people could map out the inside of your home with quite some degree, even to the point of furniture placement. So, if one really wanted to know what you own there are plenty of ways to find out and most are much less exotic than I just mentioned. That is unless they were bought 50 years ago, are not in your home, buried in the hills and you never use them, ever.
     
  14. Field Tester

    Field Tester Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Color me surprised that .30-06 has not responded to several of the questions in this thread asking him to back up his statements.
    I suspect young hubris may be at play here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2015
  15. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    9,357
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Dude, I lived under the 1994 "assault weapon" fraud, and there are plenty of legislators who would like to do something much, much worse than that. Are you seriously saying that no one, nationwide, is trying to ban AR's or over-10-round magazines anymore? Are you aware of the firearms restrictions in California, or the ones that were recently passed in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, or the transfer ban passed in the state of Washington?

    A gun ban doesn't have to ban *all* guns to be a ban, any more than a book ban has to ban *all* books to be a ban on books. There are plenty of legislators who would like nothing better than to outlaw AR's, or all rifles with protruding handgrips, or all guns over 10 rounds, or all guns that don't have an electronic interlock. Do I need to provide names and bill numbers?
     
  16. Crawdad1

    Crawdad1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,725
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Hold on now, don't forget that after they passed the 'assault weapons' ban in 1994 the Brady bunch was quoted as saying that this is, "only the beginning" and then started with their 'sniper rifle' argument.
     
  17. JN01

    JN01 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    E Tennessee
    Link from thirty-ought-six:
    You do realize that FactCheck.org is itself a biased source don't you?
    http://thelibertyprofessor.com/tag/annenberg-public-policy-foundation-bias/. Even a casual read of the site reveals that FactCheck is much more likely to challenge statements made by the political right than the political left.

    FactCheck bias is evident in the link you provided as well:

    Commercial sales at gun shows and on-line are already regulated, you must have a FFL and conduct a background check. If a guy brings a gun to a gun show to sell or arranges for a face to face sale over the internet (really no different than posting it on a "cork bulletin board") they are PRIVATE SALES. So either the bill DOES in fact prohibit some private sales, or it only affects sales which already require background checks in which case the sponsors are not being honest about the checks being expanded. Why doesn't "FactCheck" point out this inconsistancy?

    The NRA sometimes uses hyperbole to rally its members, but when it comes to basic facts and truthfulness on the issue, they have their opponents beat hands down.
     
  18. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,655
    Location:
    Georgia
    Although very few people do it (and I have yet to see anybody claim it has any impact on violent crime at all), there is no federal law against shipping a firearm (long gun at least) to another person without an FFL or background check (same state of course).

    Just for the sake of complete correctness.
     
  19. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    PDX
    How about the NRA's own publications as proof of NRA fear-mongering?

    Example: The NRA's February 2015 issue of American Hunter

    http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ah_201502/index.php?startid=2#/0

    Cover Story: The ruin Obama may leave behind. Are you prepared for the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?

    Really? Now is the most dangerous time American as ever faced? Even if limiting discussion the topic of gun control, today is not the most dangerous time for America's gun owners. Is today more dangerous that when Obama first took office and Democrats controlled both housed of Congress? Today Republicans control both houses of Congress. Even before the current election the GOP controlled the House and had the ability to block any gun measure they didn't like.

    The NRA scored a major victory but they still can't seem to dial back the fear. This is what turns off more moderate people from the NRA.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
  20. JN01

    JN01 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    E Tennessee
    But that would still be a private sale. Referring to someone making commercial sales would indicate they are "engaged in the business" (in BATFE speak) and would therefore need a FFL.
     
  21. JN01

    JN01 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    E Tennessee
    Well, yeah, they do seem to claim that every election is the most important/dangerous ever. You have to take it all with a grain of salt. I would prefer them to be over enthusiastic than complacent. Had they not rallied the troops, the recent universal background check bill might have passed. Voters need to keep constant pressure on their elected officials to do the right thing.
     
  22. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    PDX
    The most recent universal background check bill never had a chance of becoming law. The NRA's victory was defeating it in the Senate and making Obama and the Democrats look bad. A companion bill never even came up for a vote in the House.

    The NRA needs to read "The Boy Who Called Wolf" and take the message to heart.
     
  23. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,655
    Location:
    Georgia
    Did you live under a rock for Dec 2012 - late spring 2013?

    Did you see what was being proposed in the legislature, and hear what Obama called for and urged Congress to pass so that he could sign it?
     
  24. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    TN
    Did you also complain when Federal Park carry was slipped into the credit card regulation bill 0bama wanted and signed?
     
  25. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    PDX
    No, I don't live under a rock. Yes, I did see what was proposed. I expected the background check and magazine restrictions to pass the Senate and die in the House. Turns out they didn't even make it out of the Democrat controlled Senate.

    Which brings me back to my point. Considering that the Senate couldn't pass a background check bill when it was controlled by Democrats, what do you think the chance of one passing now that it is controlled by Republicans? How are we in "the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?" So according to the NRA, the Republicans taking control of the Senate made the political environment worse. Taking the House must have been bad too because today is even worst than back when Democrats controlled the Presidency, Senate and House. Either that or they are still trying to sell their message using fear.

    Another question. Do you think the NRA printing: "The ruin Obama may leave behind. Are you prepared for the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?" on the cover of American Hunter helps or hurts the ammo shortage problem?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice