- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You are splitting hairs via terminology. A the end of the day, I bet these sales are exempt a back ground check:
-Sales conduced by somebody who does not have an FFL- and
this person sells less than about twenty weapons per year.
2) congress specifically DECLINED to make private sellers-who by federal law-CANNOT SELL GUNS INTER-STATE exempt from this new law.
a) because private sellers do not have to keep records
b) because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR
If such an expansion would be unconstitutional, then why does the NRA oppose it? Why not just let it pass and put the onus on the courts to over turn it?
My guess is that if Congress passed a law requiring back ground checks on all weapons sales, such a move would stand constitutionally. The NRA is just opposed anything that might inhibit even a few gun sales.
Seriously? The NRA opposes crap that violates our rights on guns.
No, the NRA opposes a lot of things that inhibit gun sales and profits. They then try to make "things that inhibit profits" and "things that are not constitutional" into synonyms. They are not automatically synonyms. People are starting to realize this.
If you don't want to do a background check on your brother or friend- don't give him the weapon, just let him borrow it. I imagine that some people would do just that. But dealers selling to strangers are not inclined to let them borrow things.
And yes, I am aware that criminals who currently have weapons are not going to do back ground checks. A universal check, however, would impact future sales to criminals.
Every argument you've ever made in defense of any gun control scam proves that you oppose the Second Amendment.
'Gun enthusiasts' threaten woman for selling a safer gun
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?_r=0
Posted a couple of links. How sad is it that the NRA opposes technology that would limit the usage of handguns?
In the words of the NRA, this might lead to "opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology."
Except that no one at this point is even suggesting this technology be government mandated. Given the millions of legal guns currently in circulation, I am not even certain that such a requirement could even be technically or logistically feasible, let alone desirable.
But... leaving that aside for a moment, how deluded are people if they think that this is the beginning of some kind of gun-armageddon? No one is suggesting you give up normal guns, no one is suggesting that we get rid of them. This is just one way of protecting people from gun-related accidents and tragedies. In the words of the Daily Kos article,
So why would a background requirement that is almost impossible to enforce have better luck
I sell one of my best friends a Beretta 92 (that is the commercial version of the US military handgun) I have owned for 15 years. How are the feds going to prove that I didn't comply with the background check.
For all gun retailers, you would perform a background check prior to completing the transaction. No background check = no weapon sold. How is that impossible to enforce?
It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza. Then, when they track the handgun and find, oh ****, it's registered to you, the cops are gonna come after you, wanting to know how and why your friend got your gun. Since the registration can't change hands without the background check, the gun would still be registered to you, and you can be held liable for anything he does with it. It's a responsibility measure - when law-abiding gun owners find that they can be busted for failing to secure their weapons, they will take more care with them (including who they loan them out to). Thus, less guns in the hands of bad guys, because it becomes harder for them to acquire them. If you can't buy a gun commercially, and you can't buy a gun at a gunshow, and you don't know anyone willing to loan out their weapons, how exactly do bad guys get guns? It's possible, sure, but it becomes a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.
Lanza stol that rifle after killing it's owner, who did pass a backround check when she bought it, he didn't buy it privately.It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza.
That's not a loophole.Currently, yes, because of the gun show loophole (among others).
Loophole
: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
I believe the concern is that some in the government might try to mandate it. Personally...I think they are far more likely to continue with bans than this.You are completely missing the point... This is not a government inspired or mandated technology... This was manufactured by someone in the private market, for use on the private market. If a government agency were to purchase these guns, they would be supporting private enterprise and doing so in a way that would control the use of state weapons.
For all gun retailers, you would perform a background check prior to completing the transaction. No background check = no weapon sold. How is that impossible to enforce?
It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza. Then, when they track the handgun and find, oh ****, it's registered to you, the cops are gonna come after you, wanting to know how and why your friend got your gun. Since the registration can't change hands without the background check, the gun would still be registered to you, and you can be held liable for anything he does with it. It's a responsibility measure - when law-abiding gun owners find that they can be busted for failing to secure their weapons, they will take more care with them (including who they loan them out to). Thus, less guns in the hands of bad guys, because it becomes harder for them to acquire them. If you can't buy a gun commercially, and you can't buy a gun at a gunshow, and you don't know anyone willing to loan out their weapons, how exactly do bad guys get guns? It's possible, sure, but it becomes a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
You don't get it, do you?
The 2nd Amendment was included in the constitution to protect our freedom
Like the freedom to threaten a businesswoman because wingnuts don't like the product she's selling
or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.
It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza.
How is it not? If only one accident is ever prevented because a gun refused to fire because the owner was not handling it, is it not worth it?
Felons never purchase a gun legally. It is against federal law(not to get into the constitutionality of it at this point, just the law) for a felon to even handle a firearm. Whether a felon has a person straw buy for them(separate felony for the straw buyer, multiple felonies from "in possession" to "conspiracy" to federal perjury for both the felon and straw buyer), a black market sale is illegal, purchasing is a felony. Knowingly selling to a felon is a felony, there is nothing illegal about selling unknowingly to a prohibited person unless you are an FFL.or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.
Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”
Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States.
The very same people who tout the free market are against someone buying a gun that will only fire for them and nobody else?
Nonsense. The gun will fire for anyone with the watch or a freq hack.
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.
Wow. Someone has seconds to act and can't remember their damn pin. :dohFrom the article...
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.
Just thinking of possibilities.Hacking it, while not impossible, would be quite difficult, and for the average gun thief, impossible. The gun does provide a pretty hefty level of security. And, like I said before, if someone does not like that feature, they don't have to buy the gun.
Wow. Someone has seconds to act and can't remember their damn pin. :doh
Yeah, not really good Idea.
Just thinking of possibilities.
Hackers who choose this path can access pretty much anything wireless.
Vehicles, baby monitors, CC information, rfid.
I can't see that being any different for a micro-chipped gun.
They sweep the neighborhood to see who has one, to avoid or to steal.
Making it a requirement may not be such a great idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?