Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National FOID?, gun law idea

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ewlyon, Jan 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bang!

    Bang! Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Mid TN
    More laws for law abiding citizens to follow? Law abiding citizens are not the problem. So..........................no.
     
  2. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Can you cite that law?
     
  3. stonecutter2

    stonecutter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,182
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL
    Are you serious? What is this, law school?

    Here's the part about possession of nuclear materials:
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/39/831

    Use your own google Fu for attack drone purchase/possession, and once again...please calm down.
     
  4. WYOMan

    WYOMan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    New Braunfels, TX
    First thing that I did after moving here was to DESTROY my Illinois FOID card. It made me feel free again. I WILL NOT be made to have ANYTHING like it EVER AGAIN.
     
  5. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Target practice?
     
  6. WYOMan

    WYOMan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    New Braunfels, TX
    Nope. I sat on the porch, and relished every second that I chopped it up into tiny little pieces.
     
  7. gondorian

    gondorian Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    Illinois
    How about a background stamp on a DL or state ID that allows you to bypass NICS? Then require used sales to keep of record of DL number after a sale. Don't make a new system like Ill has which is a waste of money. Having a stamp of a background check would eliminate the need for FOID and that whole system, and would allow background checks for private sales and close the gun-show "loophole".
     
  8. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    How about no?

    Why agree to more infringement? Why give ground on the private side? Why should someone who sells their gun need to maintain a government approved record?
     
  9. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    I'm gonna read all that? Not! A quick scan reveals a lot about stealing nuclear material and threatening with it, but prohibiting ownership? I'm innocent of violating any law until you prove I'm guilty.

    Anyway, this is about principles, not picking nits. Rest assured, you talk compromise, you will get coercion. No, we must stand our ground, solidly and in lock step. Every gun owner that offers up a piece of some other gun owner's rights to protect his own is part of the problem.
     
  10. WYOMan

    WYOMan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    New Braunfels, TX
    I hate that when you get into a debate about firearms, and people bring up grenades, grenade launchers, artillery, rockets, and nukes.
    A little piece of information for the un-informed........THOSE THINGS ARE NOT FIREARMS.....THEY ARE ORDINANCE!!!!!!!
    The people have the right to keep and bear ARMS....NOT ORDINANCE!!!
    :fire::cuss::banghead:
     
  11. ThatGuyHank

    ThatGuyHank Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I live in New Jersey and we have this FOID card nonsense. It literally does nothing more than what a background check at the gun store does. All it serves to do is to discourage those that aren't flag waving 2nd amendment advocates from buying guns. It's mainly just a big PITA.
     
  12. easyg

    easyg Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    off-line mostly.
    There should be NO background check.
    We have already given away the right to be presumed innocent, which was the cornerstone of the U.S. justice system.

    No.
    I should be able to sell my private property to whom ever I desire.
    And I shouldn't need government permission to do so.
     
  13. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    When a federal court ruled that the Illinois handgun carry laws violated the Second Amendment and Illinois would have to join other 49 states in allowing some form of lawful handgun carry for self-defense, the gun control crowd was quick to rally and cry that part of federalism is to allow the sovereign states to adopt laws, such as gun laws, adapted to their particular situation and traditions, and its part of the noble experiment of federalism to have no carry for self defense in Illinois, blah blah blah.

    OK, it is part of the experiment of federalism that most of the states don't have a FOID (firearms owners identification) card and don't want it.

    When I point out that the State of Tennessee constitution declares the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms, the state reserves the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime, the right primarily protected is self-defense and volunteer military service, the tradition lawful uses of guns (hunting, defending livestock, collection as curios or keepsakes) are not unprotected by the emphasis on defense. Tennessee had a permit to purchase a handgun with (potential) fifteen day waiting period; that was rejected when an instant background check system was put in place. And anti-gunners have told me that they don't care about Tennessee, once they get a National Sullivan Act federal law trumps state constitutions and state laws.

    Anti-gunners are antifederalist pro-states rights to defend tough state gun laws, but turn into strict federalists if they see a chance to pass a federal law stricter than state law.

    If you have a gut reaction of hating demon rum, reefer madness, smut magazines, "assault weapons", video games, any other scapegoat du jour, the only compromise is in the direction of more restriction, and each compromise leads to another.
     
  14. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,545
    Location:
    Georgia
    Hell no.
     
  15. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    Sorry but a polite NO.

    None of these gun control proposals do anything to improve security in gun free zones.
     
  16. bhesler

    bhesler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    My thought is that something quite the opposite would work. Adding a restriction notice to all state issued ID for those who are prohibited. It would take a few years to be fully effective as currently issued IDs are typically valid for 4-5 years. It would require the confiscation and reissue of ID when someone is convicted of a prohibiting offense. It would not be foolproof, as duplicate ID could exist.

    It preserves private sales with no extra background check required.
     
  17. ewlyon

    ewlyon Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    247
    Location:
    East side of Wisconsin
    Thank you gondorian and Bhesler. Some of the first posts to take this thread as intended. I really like the idea of marking the identification of those prohibited to own and of using current identification cards as the host.
     
  18. poboy6

    poboy6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    MO
    worst idea ever.
     
  19. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,822
    Location:
    Central PA
    So you now have to show ID to purchase a gun from your neighbor? :scrutiny:

    Putting a line in the coding on your DL that flags an FFL that you're prohibited is probably less of an intrusion than all the other suggestions, but what's the point? He's calling you in anyway!
     
  20. bhesler

    bhesler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    While you and your neighbor might know each other well enough to be certain that they are not prohibited, many people cannot. In all other FTF transactions, you should be checking an ID to be sure that they are residents of the same state, correct?

    As for an FFL, they can inform people that they would be/ or already have committed a felony by lying on the 4473. Or they can have a policy of ID'ing all people browsing/purchasing guns, to cut down straw purchases. Ranges can also check IDs to make sure prohibited people are not using their facilities.
     
  21. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    FOID card plus a bunch of other restrictions have stopped the crime in Chi..., never mind.
     
  22. Lost Sheep

    Lost Sheep Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,661
    Location:
    Alaska
    Universal Firearms Owner's Rights?

    How about this idea?

    Everyone who wants one can get a Firearms' Owner's ID card. No questions asked, no requirements, no hurdles, no qualifications. If you are a legal resident/citizen of the U.S., you are authorized (per the Second Amendment) to own firearms. Anything you like can be purchased upon presentation of the card to the seller. No waiting period, no background checks except for the verification of the card's authenticity.

    Only those convicted of specified crimes or adjudicated prohibitions would lose their cards.

    What do you think?

    I have one problem with this proposal. It is a big one and if you don't know what it is, you will probably never.

    Lost Sheep
     
  23. Lost Sheep

    Lost Sheep Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,661
    Location:
    Alaska
    Sorry, the Second Amendment does make reference to a militia. That kind of implies an exclusion to flippancy.

    Now, I DO have a problem with anyone who would set themselves up at the arbiter of what is flippant and what is not. I think the founding Fathers would, too.

    Lost Sheep
     
  24. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    What could possibly be wrong with that?
     
  25. danoam

    danoam Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    No, not one inch.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page