Page 2 of 2
Re: Am I missing the boat
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:21 pm
by ScottDLS
No let’s not start prosecuting people who “lie” on the 4473. The current iteration of the 4473 is like an IRS 1040. Many of the definitions are not clear. The instructions are based on what the ATF thinks the law ought to be rather than what it is or current case law. The definition straw purchases seems to change weekly. NICS is worse than the TSA no fly list. The real reason that almost no NICS denied purchase attempts are prosecuted is that the government would lose most of them for lack of proof. And they might get some court precedents that would contradict ATFs current interpretation of the law.
No to pre crime laws.
No to magazine capacity limits.
No to Federal or State interference in private intrastate commercial transactions.
No to plastic accessory and cosmetic feature bans.
No to restrictions on handgun or long rifle carry.
Re: Am I missing the boat
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:25 pm
by The Annoyed Man
ScottDLS wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:21 pm
No let’s not start prosecuting people who “lie” on the 4473. The current iteration of the 4473 is like an IRS 1040. Many of the definitions are not clear. The instructions are based on what the ATF thinks the law ought to be rather than what it is or current case law. The definition straw purchases seems to change weekly. NICS is worse than the TSA no fly list. The real reason that almost no NICS denied purchase attempts are prosecuted is that the government would lose most of them for lack of proof. And they might get some court precedents that would contradict ATFs current interpretation of the law.
No to pre crime laws.
No to magazine capacity limits.
No to Federal or State interference in private intrastate commercial transactions.
No to plastic accessory and cosmetic feature bans.
No to restrictions on handgun or long rifle carry.
So when are you announcing your campaign for POTUS? I trust you’re not too grumpy?
Re: Am I missing the boat
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:42 pm
by ScottDLS
The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:25 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:21 pm
No let’s not start prosecuting people who “lie” on the 4473. The current iteration of the 4473 is like an IRS 1040. Many of the definitions are not clear. The instructions are based on what the ATF thinks the law ought to be rather than what it is or current case law. The definition straw purchases seems to change weekly. NICS is worse than the TSA no fly list. The real reason that almost no NICS denied purchase attempts are prosecuted is that the government would lose most of them for lack of proof. And they might get some court precedents that would contradict ATFs current interpretation of the law.
No to pre crime laws.
No to magazine capacity limits.
No to Federal or State interference in private intrastate commercial transactions.
No to plastic accessory and cosmetic feature bans.
No to restrictions on handgun or long rifle carry.
So when are you announcing your campaign for POTUS? I trust you’re not too grumpy?
Wee ahhh nawt tawking a out becoming Venezuela! Why cahnt we be maw like Nawwway?
We will end factory fahming and return the land to the people.
Re: Am I missing the boat
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:57 pm
by NotRPB
I'm surprised we haven't tried this fantastic idea before.
Lets try this first: Require all private pharmaceutical sales to strangers have background checks performed
... That'd be cheaper than the war on drugs we've had for years.
See if that works to prevent the pharmaceuticals falling into the wrong hands, if it does, let's do it <
Re: Am I missing the boat
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:17 pm
by Alf
RPBrown wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:35 pm
Just sitting here thinking about Dan Patrick and his shift in 2a stance and was wondering why if someone is denied through NICS, due to a felony, mental issues or whatever reason, why cant the feds contact local LEO's to investigate the individual trying top buy a weapon? The dealer has all of the relevant information (or should have) on the paperwork.
The West Texas shooter supposedly tried to buy a gun from a dealer and was denied. This should have prompted at least an investigation into this guy if not been cause for an arrest for a felon attempting to purchase a firearm
You're missing the point of gun control laws.
Gun control laws were never intended to keep guns out of criminal hands. They have always been intended to keep good people from protecting themselves against bad people. The roots go back through history, before guns.
Why do you think Japanese peasants weren't allowed to own the same weapons as Samurai? Why do you think European peasants weren't allowed to own the same weapons as Knights? Never mind that few, if any, peasants or merchants could afford the same quality weapons. They had the numbers and could have defended themselves from EVIL if they had weapons, even if they were lower quality weapons. But power corrupts and those in power don't want good people to have effective tools to resist EVIL.