You live in South Side Chicago and are prohibited from owning or purchasing a gun. Illinois requires a background check for private sales. So you drive 20 miles to East Chicago, Indiana and purchase a gun face to face because Indiana does not require a background check for private sales. You return home with your gun.
The correct argument we don't hear on state with 'lax' Gun Control laws
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
You live in South Side Chicago and are prohibited from owning or purchasing a gun. Illinois requires a background check for private sales. So you drive 20 miles to East Chicago, Indiana and purchase a gun face to face because Indiana does not require a background check for private sales. You return home with your gun.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But if it was my intention to commit a crime with that gun, why not commit it where I bought it? Why bring trouble home with me?
And why isn't "gun crime" higher in those states around Illinois?
Deanimator
Member
How did I BECOME a prohibited person? By committing crimes, probably violent ones?
So that being the case, why would I care about a law requiring a background check, but NOT the laws against drug trafficking, robbery, rape, murder, etc.?
Gun control advocacy is "magical" thinking in its starkest form.
luzyfuerza
Member
Under Federal law, any face-to-face sale can ONLY occur between residents of the same state. If I'm an Illinois resident and I travel to Indiana and buy a gun face to face from a resident of Indiana, then under federal law the seller of that gun has committed a felony.
The scenario you pose is illegal under existing federal law. Background checks have NOTHING to do with it.
Enforce EXISTING laws!
Vern Humphrey
Member
Oh, but that's too HARD for liberals. They just want to pass more laws, infringe on more rights, then blame the victims for the results.
Yes, private sales across state lines are illegal. That has little to do with why they actually happen. They happen because it is very easy to do and such a sale as very little risk for the prohibited buyer and no risk for the seller. Indiana law makes it a crime to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. Indiana does not require the seller to make any effort to determine if the person they are selling to is a prohibited person. The only way to prosecute a illegal private sale is to do a sting, tell the seller you are prohibited, and then arrest them if they complete the sale anyway.
IF Indiana required background checks for private sales the vast majority of gun owners would require a background check because they are law abiding citizens and won't knowingly break the law. That means a prohibited person from would have to purchase from a criminal either in their own state or in another. This would effectively close the private market to prohibited persons and require them to buy on the black market.
As it stands today, the lowest risk way for a prohibited person in Chicago to purchase a gun is to buy one across the border.
Vern Humphrey
Member
And if there was a law prohibiting people from advocating violations of the constitution, you wouldn't be making that post.
But such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment, just as your proposal is a violation of the Second Amendment.
You keep missing the point: The gun doesn't commit the crime, the CRIMINAL commits the crime. That's why "gun control" only disarms the honest people and makes them easier prey for the criminal.
Background checks both for new guns sold at dealers and used guns sold by individuals are not a violation of the constitution. At least not until you can show the me case law that says they are.
Background checks don't do a thing to take guns away from honest people and they prevent the sale of guns to criminals. That is a win in my book.
Vern Humphrey
Member
So explain how requiring a photo ID to vote is a violation of civil rights, but requiring a back ground check for a simple face-to-face sale is not.
Once again, it is the CRIMINAL who commits the crime, and making it difficult for honest people to arm themselves does nothing to reduce crime.
Requiring a photo ID to vote is not a violation of civil right. That is unless you can show me the case law that says it is.
Making it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves does help reduce crime.
another pake
Member
Reading and re-reading this thread leaves me shaking my head...
I was bred, born and raised in "Chi-raq".
South side.
Englewood.
Only a few minutes from Indiana.
If you know the windy, you know what I've just described.
By the grace of God, I've escaped that life. But folks please, Wake Up and Smell the Coffee.
If anyone out there, anyone, from the Police Chief of the city to any members of this forum, to the former community organizer of that same city who now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave really believes that Indiana's lax laws are the cause of gun violence in Chi town, you aren't being honest.....
Guns are prolific there for one reason. There is a strong market for them there! There is a strong market whether they are hard to get or not. These are not collectors we're talking about. These are not people who concern themselves about or are even aware whether a gun is legally transferred.
Years ago the guns everybody worried about were "Saturday Night Specials"
Google it. I could build a gun in twenty minutes with pipe, a nail, rubber bands and a stick. Bang, you're dead.
The reason there is a strong market is "turf", mostly over drugs. Who gets to sell what, where. Kinda like having every Wal-Mart distribution center in one community. They're gonna fight over turf.
BTW, if you also believe that most of the drugs that get delivered to the poor parts of Chicago or any other big city for distribution get consumed there, you might not really want to know the truth. Your ignorance allows you to sleep easy at night. Just a few blocks (in some cases) or a few miles away from the "death zones" enough of your friends, acquaintances, sadly maybe your family members desire what's being peddled that there will be continued competition to be the supplier. Until the killings start up in your neighborhood or affect someone that you love you will remain uninterested.
I realize that many drugs get purchased with the proceeds of thefts, robberies and burglaries. But far too many are purchased by the well healed, financially. Somebody will assume the risks of supplying them.
....Please continue with your dreams and fantasies...
I was bred, born and raised in "Chi-raq".
South side.
Englewood.
Only a few minutes from Indiana.
If you know the windy, you know what I've just described.
By the grace of God, I've escaped that life. But folks please, Wake Up and Smell the Coffee.
If anyone out there, anyone, from the Police Chief of the city to any members of this forum, to the former community organizer of that same city who now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave really believes that Indiana's lax laws are the cause of gun violence in Chi town, you aren't being honest.....
Guns are prolific there for one reason. There is a strong market for them there! There is a strong market whether they are hard to get or not. These are not collectors we're talking about. These are not people who concern themselves about or are even aware whether a gun is legally transferred.
Years ago the guns everybody worried about were "Saturday Night Specials"
Google it. I could build a gun in twenty minutes with pipe, a nail, rubber bands and a stick. Bang, you're dead.
The reason there is a strong market is "turf", mostly over drugs. Who gets to sell what, where. Kinda like having every Wal-Mart distribution center in one community. They're gonna fight over turf.
BTW, if you also believe that most of the drugs that get delivered to the poor parts of Chicago or any other big city for distribution get consumed there, you might not really want to know the truth. Your ignorance allows you to sleep easy at night. Just a few blocks (in some cases) or a few miles away from the "death zones" enough of your friends, acquaintances, sadly maybe your family members desire what's being peddled that there will be continued competition to be the supplier. Until the killings start up in your neighborhood or affect someone that you love you will remain uninterested.
I realize that many drugs get purchased with the proceeds of thefts, robberies and burglaries. But far too many are purchased by the well healed, financially. Somebody will assume the risks of supplying them.
....Please continue with your dreams and fantasies...
Vern Humphrey
Member
I'm a county election commissioner in Arkansas. Our law requiring a photo ID was just overturned because it "violates voter's rights."
Prove it.
None of these laws do anything to reduce crime -- they merely harass honest gun owners.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Deanimator
Member
So-called "universal background checks" are nothing more than a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, the enactment of which would INSTANTLY empower the government to BAN whatever they wanted to, JUST LIKE CHIRAQ DID.
You KNOW this.
Registration isn't needed for a ban. See Australia as an example.
Deanimator
Member
But it sure makes it a lot EASIER, doesn't it?
How did Chicago implement its handgun BAN?
Deanimator
Member
But if an anti-gun cultist said THAT, he'd have to admit that his CENTRAL argument is false.
You're being kind, but there it is.
No, it's to buy a probably stolen gun from another gangbanger.
Who is more likely to try to cheat you, a known criminal or the guy on armslist?
No a registry doesn't make a ban any easier. Both are simply signing a piece of paper.
Once that piece of paper is signed the battle is lost.
Deanimator
Member
How did Chicago implement it's ban?
Afraid to say?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
