Shumer shutdown

[Five Seasons]

4 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

I thought we were talking NY, not sure why someone would take that chance.

 

Criminals will get guns no matter what laws are on the books, NICS checks don't stop them. I would like to know the number of NICS checks that have prevented criminals (felons) from purchasing and possessing a gun. I'm betting it is a very small percentage.

what chance? And why should we make it easy for a criminal? What about a 17 year old who isn't even 18 yet? a nics check costs you $20. Is that really so bad?

3 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

Yes but many states require a concealed carry permit while you don't need one to own the gun. For example Florida, you can't carry your gun on person unless you have a Florida permit.

I don't understand your point. I actually agree with the way the southern states do it. But still a felon could easily buy a pistol just as he could a ruger 10/22. that was my point.

[steve863]

I've said this before, but most people fall deaf on this.  The vast majority, probably close to 100% of new guns both long and short enter private ownership thru legal means.  I haven't heard too many stories where some shady employee at Ruger, S&W, Glock manufacturing plants was selling brand new weapons to hoods from the back door.  So if they enter private ownership legally, how are the bad guys getting them?  Some get stolen, yes, but I would say that is not the way most criminals are getting them.  Obviously there is a breakdown in the system somewhere.  The good guys who initially bought them, will knowingly or unknowingly help the hoods get them.  I will leave it up to everyone's imagination to how this could possibly be happening.

 

 

[Five Seasons]

1 hour ago, steve863 said:

I've said this before, but most people fall deaf on this.  The vast majority, probably close to 100% of new guns both long and short enter private ownership thru legal means.  I haven't heard too many stories where some shady employee at Ruger, S&W, Glock manufacturing plants was selling brand new weapons to hoods from the back door.  So if they enter private ownership legally, how are the bad guys getting them?  Some get stolen, yes, but I would say that is not the way most criminals are getting them.  Obviously there is a breakdown in the system somewhere.  The good guys who initially bought them, will knowingly or unknowingly help the hoods get them.  I will leave it up to everyone's imagination to how this could possibly be happening.

 

 

i agree with this 100%. A common method is also illegal import. Using the same methods and routes as most of our drugs and human trafficking. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Belo

[chas0218]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

what chance? And why should we make it easy for a criminal? What about a 17 year old who isn't even 18 yet? a nics check costs you $20. Is that really so bad?

I don't understand your point. I actually agree with the way the southern states do it. But still a felon could easily buy a pistol just as he could a ruger 10/22. that was my point.

I'm saying if I was to sell a gun I wouldn't be taking the chance on going to jail over $20. In other states if you sell or give a gun to a felon you will be going to jail with huge fines, god forbid that gun is used to kill someone then you can be charged as an accomplice. No way in hell NY or other state would I as a private seller take the risk. If someone is willing to take that risk in a state that doesn't mandate NICS on long gun purchases that is their choice. 

[Five Seasons]

11 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

I'm saying if I was to sell a gun I wouldn't be taking the chance on going to jail over $20. In other states if you sell or give a gun to a felon you will be going to jail with huge fines, 

again, you are incorrect. Unless I knowingly sell it to a minor or felon I am not required to id or ask a single question. There is no obligation or legal repercussions for the seller. So like in the case of the guy who shot the fireman in Webster on Christmas. The buyer knew he was not allowed own firearms and she purchased for him anyhow. That is illegal in all states i believe. However, if I was in another state and sold these on craigslist to the same guy and didn't know him, there is no law violated by the seller, just the buyer. Similarly if you're 17, it's still not illegal for the seller to sell to you. It only gets harry for the buyer if the seller is very clearly underage. This is where some of our school shootings come into play, although i think we would all agree that they're mostly the result of irresponsible parents.

On top of all this, the prosecution would need to prove in court that you knowingly sold to someone who was legally bared from owning firearms. That proof isn't always easy.

are you starting to see the issue now?

what's the fix? a nics check. Make this guy drive down to the ghetto to buy his guns. Make it hard. Drive up the cost of illegal firearms. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Belo

[Steuben Jerry]

9 minutes ago, Belo said:

That is illegal in all states i believe.

Absolutely correct on that. Federal law bars "straw purchases".

[chas0218]

3 minutes ago, Belo said:

again, you are incorrect. Unless I knowingly sell it to a minor or felon I am not required to id or ask a single question. There is no obligation or legal repercussions for the seller. So like in the case of the guy who shot the fireman in Webster on Christmas. The buyer knew he was not allowed own firearms and she purchased for him anyhow. That is illegal in all states i believe. However, if I was in another state and sold these on craigslist to the same guy and didn't know him, there is no law violated by the seller, just the buyer. Similarly if you're 17, it's still not illegal for the seller to sell to you. It only gets harry for the buyer if the seller is very clearly underage. 

are you starting to see the issue now?

I saw the issue the first time, I'm saying that playing stupid knowing or not the person is underage, or felon is not a good defense and will still likely face charges. Last I knew there weren't any laws that protect people that sell a gun to felon or underage person.

[Five Seasons]

25 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

I saw the issue the first time, I'm saying that playing stupid knowing or not the person is underage, or felon is not a good defense and will still likely face charges. Last I knew there weren't any laws that protect people that sell a gun to felon or underage person.

I don't think you're getting it. There is no law that prohibits the sale in most states. If you lived in Mississippi right now like I did for a few years. I could sell you any number and type of personally owned firearms without asking you a single questions on who you are, what your name is, how old you are, what you intend to do with them and if you have a wrap sheet etc. 

Lets say i really need the money, lost my job and stuff. I post an add online. You just got out of jail and intend to seek revenge against your ex-wife who put you in jail. You message me and we meet up. I sell you  2 shotguns and 3 pistols out of my personal collection. You shoot up the whole house killing her and 3 others. There is no law protecting me because there doesn't need to be. It was a perfectly legal sale. It would be like having a law that says it is ok to go the speed limit. Unless you can prove that I knew you were a convicted felon (which I didn't and didn't ask about because I dont need to). I did nothing wrong according to federal law and many state laws (NY not included).

In a federal nics check scenario you have to drive to a back alley in memphis to get your guns instead. Good luck with that. downtown memphis is scary as f. you're just as likely to get jacked and end up with no guns if you're not from around the way.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Belo

[chas0218]

11 minutes ago, Belo said:

I don't think you're getting it. There is no law that prohibits the sale in most states. If you lived in Mississippi right now like I did for a few years. I could sell you any number and type of personally owned firearms without asking you a single questions on who you are, what your name is, how old you are, what you intend to do with them and if you have a wrap sheet etc. 

Lets say i really need the money, lost my job and stuff. I post an add online. You just got out of jail and intend to seek revenge against your ex-wife who put you in jail. You message me and we meet up. I sell you  2 shotguns and 3 pistols out of my personal collection. You shoot up the whole house killing her and 3 others. There is no law protecting me because there doesn't need to be. It was a perfectly legal sale. It would be like having a law that says it is ok to go the speed limit. Unless you can prove that I knew you were a convicted felon (which I didn't and didn't ask about because I dont need to). I did nothing wrong according to federal law and many state laws (NY not included).

In a federal nics check scenario you have to drive to a back alley in memphis to get your guns instead. Good luck with that. downtown memphis is scary as f. you're just as likely to get jacked and end up with no guns if you're not from around the way.

I do get you can sell me any gun in your arsenal without an issue. The issue then becomes your word against the DA's or your word against the perpetrator. Then they just have to bring up past sales and twist it so any judge or jury will see their angle and pull on the heart strings a little and you're in jail. So in other words "playing stupid" isn't going to keep you out of jail. What part of this aren't you getting? Knowing or not you will get your ass in the binde.

[Rattler]

No Belo, you are the one who doesn't get it.

"The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.

The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force."

H. Binswanger

Anyone who thinks Universal NICS checks will prevent any criminal from getting a gun is a fool.  Anyone who trusts the government not to abuse a law requiring every gun transfer to be blessed by the government, even between nuclear family members, is an even bigger fool.

If you support the government's desire to inject itself into every legal, private firearm transaction by requiring they know about, and approve, every single transaction, knowing it will have ZERO effect on criminals and crime, but will have a HUGE effect on legal firearm ownership in terms of frivolous and erroneous denials, which will be costly if not impossible to reverse, or randomly increased costs for the checks, to the point of being out of reach for the average man, you really need to question your desire to voluntarily eliminate the rights you have been endowed by your creator and become a subject of the government rather than a free man.

The man in your above example could buy a car from you and run down and kill those same people.  Would that make you guilty of a crime?  No.  Why?  Because the government has no vested interested in taking people's cars away.

I know your heart is in the right place and it makes one feel good to believe they are doing a good thing, but how will you feel when you come to realize the truth about what you supported, when it becomes clear you gave away your freedoms and rights to feel like a good person?

[Five Seasons]

39 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

I do get you can sell me any gun in your arsenal without an issue. The issue then becomes your word against the DA's or your word against the perpetrator. Then they just have to bring up past sales and twist it so any judge or jury will see their angle and pull on the heart strings a little and you're in jail. So in other words "playing stupid" isn't going to keep you out of jail. What part of this aren't you getting? Knowing or not you will get your ass in the binde.

ok so you want to sell your dads old rifle. It's worth money and you're not into guns. You do your conscience some good and even ask the buyer if he's a criminal and if he intends to harm anyone. He says no. You say prove it. How does one prove they're not a criminal? So you make the sale. Happens every day all over the country.

but he is. and uses said rifle to snipe people off an overpass. 

Moral of the story? Don't ever sell your guns private party? You'll get more money just like selling your car private party vs dealer. I'm not against the private sale btw, i just believe there should be a nics check. 

Are we still confused?

 

[Five Seasons]

42 minutes ago, Rattler said:

No Belo, you are the one who doesn't get it.

"The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.

The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force."

H. Binswanger

Anyone who thinks Universal NICS checks will prevent any criminal from getting a gun is a fool.  Anyone who trusts the government not to abuse a law requiring every gun transfer to be blessed by the government, even between nuclear family members, is an even bigger fool.

If you support the government's desire to inject itself into every legal, private firearm transaction by requiring they know about, and approve, every single transaction, knowing it will have ZERO effect on criminals and crime, but will have a HUGE effect on legal firearm ownership in terms of frivolous and erroneous denials, which will be costly if not impossible to reverse, or randomly increased costs for the checks, to the point of being out of reach for the average man, you really need to question your desire to voluntarily eliminate the rights you have been endowed by your creator and become a subject of the government rather than a free man.

The man in your above example could buy a car from you and run down and kill those same people.  Would that make you guilty of a crime?  No.  Why?  Because the government has no vested interested in taking people's cars away.

I know your heart is in the right place and it makes one feel good to believe they are doing a good thing, but how will you feel when you come to realize the truth about what you supported, when it becomes clear you gave away your freedoms and rights to feel like a good person?

you are off your rocker with that stuff. But again please continue to believe that no basic solutions will help stop even some crimes and see where legislation takes us. Or be proactive? 

and to your "no criminal..." comment. see my memphis example. If i couldn't get weed from my buddy in high school i didn't drive to ave. d to get it. Not as a white boy. I just didn't smoke that night. You decide. 

[Rattler]

So you want "basic solutions" that have the potential to increase government power over the responsible gun owner, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes.  What you call "proactive" is actually infringement.  See where it takes us?  It has the potential to take us exactly where I said it will.  Once we are there, we can never go back.  Are you willing to see if I'm right?

It is impossible to stop criminals from committing crimes, but it's easy to take freedom away when people are willing to allow it.  How about severe punishment for committing crimes and leaving normal everyday gun owners alone to enjoy themselves without harming anyone?  Let's focus on the criminal use of firearms and stop trying to "prevent" responsible gun owners from having them, assuming we're all irresponsible and dangerous.

[Rattler]

I think we have gotten way off track here from the Schumer shutdown.

We should start a new thread focusing on NICS and it's flaws.  There is plenty to debate about all sorts of 2nd Amendment infringements here, enough to demand it's own thread.

[philoshop]

This country is not less safe today because there are more guns. The country is less safe because there are more stupid and often immoral people walking the streets who are willing to commit criminal acts.

[Rattler]

But it's easier for Democrats to attack gun owners than it is to fix the problems their permissive liberal agenda has created, or admit they created these problems.

 

[Five Seasons]

21 hours ago, Rattler said:

So you want "basic solutions" that have the potential to increase government power over the responsible gun owner, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes.  What you call "proactive" is actually infringement.  See where it takes us?  It has the potential to take us exactly where I said it will.  Once we are there, we can never go back.  Are you willing to see if I'm right?

It is impossible to stop criminals from committing crimes, but it's easy to take freedom away when people are willing to allow it.  How about severe punishment for committing crimes and leaving normal everyday gun owners alone to enjoy themselves without harming anyone?  Let's focus on the criminal use of firearms and stop trying to "prevent" responsible gun owners from having them, assuming we're all irresponsible and dangerous.

Fact is in NY and a few other states already have what i propose as state law. I'd rather we fight against nonsensical laws in the safe act then spending the NRA's time an money fighting a simple background check.

You and I will continue to disagree that it does nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. I gave you 2 examples of how it will help. And you've given no response to them.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Belo

[Rattler]

I responded to both of them.  You just don't comprehend the response.  They will not help.  That's wishful thinking.

Every now and then an anti-gun elected fanatic slips and lets the truth out.  The goal is complete disarmament of citizens.  That's where all of their proposals are aimed.

 

[steve863]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

I responded to both of them.  You just don't comprehend the response.  They will not help.  That's wishful thinking.

Every now and then an anti-gun elected fanatic slips and lets the truth out.  The goal is complete disarmament of citizens.  That's where all of their proposals are aimed.

 

So you think there shouldn't be any NICS checks for anyone, even for purchases from dealers?

 

 

 

[Rattler]

1 hour ago, steve863 said:

So you think there shouldn't be any NICS checks for anyone, even for purchases from dealers?

Not what I think at all.  Even though that's how it was decades ago.  But I think the criteria should be limited to anyone who's been convicted of a felony, and that's all.  They should not be recording what type of firearm was purchased either, other than was it a long gun or handgun, and that's iffy.  Otherwise there is incentive to add all sorts of insignificant criteria to deny all sorts of people.

Actually, I'd like to see a one time background check where you are issued a lifetime permit than can only be revoked after due process by a court.

Can anyone tell me why we need a NICS check for every firearm purchase, even days apart, that require the fee each time?  Can you say, "revenue generation"?  How about, "financial obstacle"?

Edited February 2, 2018 by Rattler

[Five Seasons]

Not what I think at all.  Even though that's how it was decades ago.  But I think the criteria should be limited to anyone who's been convicted of a felony, and that's all.  They should not be recording what type of firearm was purchased either, other than was it a long gun or handgun, and that's iffy.  Otherwise there is incentive to add all sorts of insignificant criteria to deny all sorts of people.
Actually, I'd like to see a one time background check where you are issued a lifetime permit than can only be revoked after due process by a court.
Can anyone tell me why we need a NICS check for every firearm purchase, even days apart, that require the fee each time?  Can you say, "revenue generation"?  How about, "financial obstacle"?

So after all that despite all the posts, you do agree in simple background checks like I originally proposed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[steve863]

17 minutes ago, Belo said:

 

So after all that despite all the posts, you do agree in simple background checks like I originally proposed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Yeah, all that griping how background checks are a step ahead of total confiscation, blah, blah, blah, and then we come to reality that background checks might be the ONLY way to keep a guy who got released from prison on Tuesday from going to Cabelas on Wednesday and buying himself a gun.  Yeah, sure he can probably buy one in the hood somewhere illegally, but that would take a little more effort and time than going to a dealer and walking out with whatever he wants no questions asked.

[Rattler]

2 hours ago, Belo said:

So after all that despite all the posts, you do agree in simple background checks like I originally proposed?

 

I have not stated I do not agree with SIMPLE background checks.  I just outlined what I believe would be acceptable, but not needed for every single firearm transaction, nor for transfers between family members and friends, nor expanded to include people who didn't pay a parking ticket, nor for building a data base of the types of firearms one owns including all the serial numbers. 

I'm against the government "fixing" the system so it can be more intrusive and more able to confiscate firearms if it decides to do so. 

I'm also against the gun owner paying for the check, which allows the government to control what that costs, and invites price increases whenever they want to tax us even more.  That would be a "sin" tax.  Do you think owning a firearm is a sin?  The anti-gun elected hacks do. 

You also have to be aware that whenever any commodity is in demand and banned by the government, it creates a black market, where prices are high and incentives to supply the banned item are also high.  Drugs are a perfect example.  Prohibition was a failure and created Al Capone and bloody violence.  Have you not noticed the rise in firearm thefts lately, even from FFL dealers?  Did background checks stop the criminals from getting the guns?

Anyone who believes they are going to solve the problem of criminals having firearms and using them in crimes, by putting even greater infringements on the responsible gun owner, really needs to consider one basic question.  "What could possibly go wrong?"

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Rattler

[Rattler]

As far as that woman goes, she isn't your average "Mom" against guns.  She's an agent of anti-gun elected hacks with orders to complete a mission.  Don't doubt it.

[Rattler]

Know why 81,000 pistol owners in NY State have yet to comply with the state's registration scheme?

81K NEW YORK GUN OWNERS TELL CUOMO WHERE TO STICK GUN DATABASE

ANDREW WEST FEBRUARY 1, 2018

There’s an extremely common misconception about the state of New York in which Americans believe that everything within the Empire State’s borders is a liberal wasteland.

In reality, however, things are much, much different.

Given the system of government bestowed upon the state, (and the nation, for that matter), where majority rules in a voting setting, New York City is an enormous factor in this misrepresentation.  The widely blue locale in the southeastern corner of the expansive state is only a few square miles across, but packs an enormous punch in our representative democracy.  It is truly a bright blue speck in a sea of red, with conservative values ruling much of the rest of the state.

And to put the size of New York State into perspective, it would take you well over seven hours to traverse from the Big Apple to the farms and hunting lands of the Buffalo area.

Now, as the left leaning legislature attempts to install a handgun database across the entire state, New Yorkers are flat out ignoring the new law, effectively telling Governor Andrew Cuomo to take the entire plan and shove it.

“The SAFE Act has been popular in urban areas, according to polling data. But some rural gun owners have resisted from the beginning. As the first big handgun registration deadline approached this winter, for people who got their guns prior to 2013, the push back grew more intense.

“Talk radio host Bill Robinson has lashed out at the state on ‘The Second Amendment Radio Show,’ which he hosts for a small station near Rochester. ‘The government shouldn’t have master lists of us gun owners and the specific guns we have,’ Robinson said on a recent episode. ‘They don’t need it!’

“As of the deadline, more than 81,000 people – or 20 percent of affected handgun owners in New York – haven’t responded to the state’s request. But New York State Police spokesman Beau Duffy argues that concern about this gun database has been overblown. He said felony charges are off the table for now. ‘We’re not going to take criminal enforcement action, particularly with those people who were unaware of this re-certification process,’ Duffy said.”

For how long, however, will the authorities wait for these 81,000 Americans to voluntarily turn themselves in, so to speak?

Surely this issue will come to a head again in the not so distant future, and we have to wonder if this will be the issue that finally splits the Empire State into New York and New Amsterdam – an idea that has been around for decades.