Search found 3 matches

by The Annoyed Man
Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:45 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 2534

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

ScottDLS wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:27 pm
I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.
Well I don’t have a problem with that idea either. My point is simply that, if we’re going to be saddled with it, then everyone who is supposed to report into it should be held to the same level of accountability as those of us who have to submit to it to buy a gun from an FFL. And if they are not to be held accountable to the system, then neither should we.
by The Annoyed Man
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:09 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 2534

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

ScottDLS wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:17 pm
- What problem are we trying to solve?
- Are there large numbers of prohibited persons obtaining guns in private sales?
- Is one enough to justify a new law?
- Is there an indication that absent the private sale "loophole" the prohibited possessor wouldn't have gotten a gun a different way?
- Why is the solution to make it harder for law abiding, non-prohibited possessors to buy and sell guns?
- What is the justification, if any, for involving the federal government in a state matter (i.e. intrastate transfer of private property between individuals)? The 1968 Gun Control Act establishing FFL's and certain federal control of firearms transactions was specifically predicated on controlling interstate commerce in firearms (you know the magic Constitutional talisman that federalizes everything :roll: ). States (including Texas) are free to impose additional regulation in transactions within their borders if they see fit. I still don't see that it would help anything, because you start to get into the minutiae of how closing the private sale loophole would work. It wouldn't.
- How is the private seller to check that the person they are selling to or transferring to is prohibited or not?
- Give them access to Federal NICS? Really? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spend all day looking people up for thrills? What if they get a delay?
- Follow the same process that FFL's do? Wait 3 days?
- Do you (privately) have the buyer fill out a 4473? Do you have to keep it? Send it to the State? The Feds? OK force everyone through an FFL? All right, what about 18-20 year olds...no more handguns for them? Exemptions for military and police 20 year olds?
- What constitutes a sale/transfer? When my dad loans me his Glock to go the range. When grandpa passes and wills me his WWII 1911? Does the executor run to an FFL?
- If someone is willing to murder somebody, how is closing the private sale "loophole" going to help? We didn't have NICS until 1998. Before then an FFL did what current private sellers are obligated to do. They didn't sell the gun to someone they knew or had reason to know was prohibited. We hear lots of great things about how NICS blocks a zillion sales, but the violent gun crime stats were falling before NICS. My proposition was that the reason was because sentencing on both a state and federal level for crime got a lot stricter.
- Another point about NICS. Everyone says why aren't we prosecuting NICS denials? Well...because NICS database stinks! My proposition is that a significant percentage of denials are false positives.
- A federal appeals court (4th circuit I think) has ruled that prosecuting a prohibited possessor for perjury on a 4473 requires proof that the person knew or should have known that he was prohibited. And with the cruddy NICS database, the vague definitions of prohibited possessors (misdemeanor DV, "adjudicated mentally defective", even the definition of "felony" in 50+ jurisdictions, the definition of "restraining order", and so on and so on).
- So now we want to engage this process, not just for regulated FFL's but for every time your brother in law loans you his lever action to go varmint hunting? -
- Also, what about the ammo "loophole". California implemented background checks for ammo.

So no we don't need to DO SOMETHING1 Well, maybe one thing, speed up the application of the death penalty to convicted capital criminals...but that's help up by the SCOTUS "loophole". No executing 17 year olds, no executing violent rapists, no executing insane people (aren't all murderers arguably insane?).

No pre-crime laws!
No unconstitutional federal interference in intrastate commerce!
No cosmetic feature bans!
No magazine size limits!

If a politician, supposedly "on our side" like the Lt. Governor or Governor or President, is going to propose additional restrictions, then they owe it to us to explain how it would work, how it would help, and how it would be Constitutional. The other side doesn't care a bit about this and will simply keep pursuing their goal of a total gun ban and confiscation and screeching and flinging poo like the monkeys they are.
And the NICS database is cruddy, as you put it, exactly because people in positions of authority, who are mandated by law to forward disqualifying information to NICS, are failing to fulfill that mandate!!!! The difference formthem is that, if I lie on a 4473, and I’m found out, I am threatened with up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But if a psychiatrist fails to forward disqualifying info to NICS, or the Air Force fails to notify NICS of a domestic violence conviction of one of its personnel, or a psychiatric hospital which holds a deranged patient for two weeks, ALL fail to report these disqualifying events to NICS (ALL these things fell though the cracks with the Sutherland Springs shooter), literally NONE of these people are penalized in any way whatsoever for breaking the law. The shooter lies on the 4473, and gets his guns, and 26 people are killed and 20 more wounded. The shooter is guilty, but all those other people enabled him, and their enabling was in violation of the law. But nothing happened to them.

The only people who got punished were America's law-abiding gun owners—who had to endure yet another round of threats against their lawfully purchased property, and against their 2nd Amendment liberties, and of course the shooter's victims—all of whom suffered because of the inexcusable fecklessness of people in authority who violated the law.

Here is ONE change to the law that I would support. Subject those in positions of authority who are mandated by law to forward disqualifying information to NICS, subject to fines and prison sentences for having failed to do so whenever a firearm is used in a crime by someone they could have disqualified if they’d just done their darn jobs.

I'd support a change to the law like that one all day long.
by The Annoyed Man
Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:39 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 2534

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

E.Marquez wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:47 pm
So my grandfather would need to get these letters to pass on his guns to me?
If I die this afternoon, and did not have the forethought to get these letters in advance of dying in a car accident..my firearms can not be transferred to my wife and sons?
If I stay as grumpy as I am today, it is likely I will not have the three required "friends" to testify and crate these letters....so my weapons must be what, destroyed? Turned in to the government to the government?


What if, what if we asked congress to write a law, that makes it illegal to take possession of a weapon if prohibited and then convicted those that take possession anyway? That should work...Oh wait we have that law but either they are not tried, or given light sentences.

What if, what if we asked congress to write a law, that makes it illegal to sell or give a weapon to a prohibited person.. Oh wait we have that law but either they are not tried, or given light sentences.

The government is not even going after prohibited persons that fail a NICS check from a FFL transfer for an actual prohibition felon, drug issue, mental issue, domestic violence, restraining order(vice an administrative issue, mis matched address, ect) If they wont go after, investigate, charge if appropriate (the two time felon, the domestic violence, ect) convicted person..the ones that self ID them selfs as having committed a criminal act (attempt to take possession of a weapon when they know they are prohibited
I’m going to write in E.Marquez for POTUS in 2020 .... if he’s not too grumpy to serve. Seriously though, he’s absolutely correct.

1. Existing laws are frequently not enforced, even when the perp is reported to police/ATF/FBI by conscientious gun store employees and/or other responsible citizens.
2. Because those laws are rarely enforced, we don’t know if they would actually work or not.
3. Also because those laws are rarely enforced, we can’t reasonably expect that new laws would be enforced any more assiduously.
4. And because we don’t have a reasonable expectation that new laws would be enforced any more conscientiously than the old laws, we can’t know of the new laws will work.

Furthermore, even if such a law controlling private sales were passed, and even if gov’t said, "no really....THIS time we're serious about enforcing the law", this law would be unenforceable. It depends entirely on the buyers/sellers self-reporting, and there are any number of reasons why someone would not. Moreover since there are literally hundreds of millions of firearms already in private circulation out there, many of which have been completely legally sold and resold several times. There’s simply no way for the gov’t to know who has what.

And philosophically speaking, this is exactly how it should be. The opposite of the status quo is de facto gun registration, and that should be avoided if at all possible. We should WANT gun ownership to be as anonymous as possible. Self-reporting private gun sales would peal back the anonymity.

Return to “Would you support this gun private purchase restriction”