Bill, Melinda Gates Donate $1 Million To Gun Control Campaign

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
They aren't actually banned. You just have to have a special license to own them.

you are not correct. You can own machine guns that were registered before May 19, 1986. The cost has gone up 1000% as a result of the law

private citizens cannot own post may 19, 1986 machine gun UNLESS

1) you are a machine gun dealer or maker (Title II manufacturer)

2) a government agency sends you are request letter asking they are interested in buying a certain type of machine gun and they Request you provide a sample for them to try or examine

3) then you are able to obtain a POST May 19, 1986 dealers sample so you may show the interested GOVERNMENTAL agency that sample

a) you cannot transfer that sample to a private individual

b) if you cease being a dealer-you cannot transfer that weapon to yourself

You really are not "owning" the gun but rather possessing it for demonstration purposes

its an awful law that needs to be declared unconstitutional

legal machine guns have been used to kill less people than have been killed by runaway rhinos from zoos in the last 70 years

the ban on post May 19, 1986 machine guns proves something I have said for 40 years. Democrat gun haters pass laws not to stop crime (ONE MURDER-by a DAYTON OHIO COP-with a legal machine gun in 70 years) but to harass gun owners. that is what Dem gun control laws are all about

HARASSING PEOPLE

Simply put, you are misreading the law.

It is VERY difficult to own an NFA (legally) and quite the hassle, but you absolutely can own one. You have to have a class 3 license, get permission from the ATF, AND from your local LEA , and of course fully register said weapon, but you CAN get one.

It's VERY difficult, especially in certain parts of the country, but doable.

And yes, the law is unconstitutional.

 

[turtledude]

[
They aren't actually banned. You just have to have a special license to own them.

you are not correct. You can own machine guns that were registered before May 19, 1986. The cost has gone up 1000% as a result of the law

private citizens cannot own post may 19, 1986 machine gun UNLESS

1) you are a machine gun dealer or maker (Title II manufacturer)

2) a government agency sends you are request letter asking they are interested in buying a certain type of machine gun and they Request you provide a sample for them to try or examine

3) then you are able to obtain a POST May 19, 1986 dealers sample so you may show the interested GOVERNMENTAL agency that sample

a) you cannot transfer that sample to a private individual

b) if you cease being a dealer-you cannot transfer that weapon to yourself

You really are not "owning" the gun but rather possessing it for demonstration purposes

its an awful law that needs to be declared unconstitutional

legal machine guns have been used to kill less people than have been killed by runaway rhinos from zoos in the last 70 years

the ban on post May 19, 1986 machine guns proves something I have said for 40 years. Democrat gun haters pass laws not to stop crime (ONE MURDER-by a DAYTON OHIO COP-with a legal machine gun in 70 years) but to harass gun owners. that is what Dem gun control laws are all about

HARASSING PEOPLE

Simply put, you are misreading the law.

It is VERY difficult to own an NFA (legally) and quite the hassle, but you absolutely can own one. You have to have a class 3 license, get permission from the ATF, AND from your local LEA , and of course fully register said weapon, but you CAN get one.

It's VERY difficult, especially in certain parts of the country, but doable.

And yes, the law is unconstitutional.

1) I was a DOJ attorney-this area of the law was one of my specialities

a) in some states it is illegal to own a machine gun even if you meet the federal requirements

b) in some states, the chief LEO will not sign your paperwork forcing you to create a trust or a corporation to ow the weapon.

C it is NOT A class THREE LICENSE but a TAX Stamp

and yes you can own one in Ohio if it was made and REGISTERED before May 19, 1986

Oh BTW I also represented FOUR class three dealers and a TITLE II Manufacture (machine guns and "destructive devices) before I became a fed

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government doesn't care about most gun sales in America since they go to law abiding people.

What the government does care about is the gun sales to criminals.

The government can't check every sale especially between private citizens.

What the government can do is when a gun is used in a crime, they can find out who sold that gun to the criminal.

How?
And you do know that it is not illegal to sell a gun to a criminal, right?

If you sell a gun to the to someone that you know it's not going to end up in a crime and don't have that background check done, the government will never know about it.

And now you see how universal background checks are unenforceable.

Know what that means? They violate the 2nd amendment at even the weakest level of scrutiny as there can be no rational basis for a law that cannot be enforced.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A similar law in Colorado was recently upheld as Constitutional by a Federal judge:


'Addressing expanded background checks, [U.S. District Judge Marcia] Krieger, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, ruled that if the government has the power to regulate sales from gun dealers, then "that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

"Thus, the Court has grave doubt that a law regulating (as opposed to prohibiting) temporary private transfers of firearms implicates the Second Amendment's guarantee at all."

She said requiring background checks for private transactions, whether in person or over the Internet, "does not prevent a person otherwise permitted to obtain a firearm from acquiring one, nor subject that person to any greater burdens than he or she would face if acquiring the weapon commercially.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest that a permissible burden on commercial sales of firearms cannot similarly be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan."'



U.S. judge upholds Colorado gun restrictions

Saul, when you were in law school in Manila, did they ever happen to mention "the commerce clause," and the ability of the federal government to regulate issues based on products traveling between states?

If Joe who lives in Denver, sells a gun to Fred who lives in Boulder, is that "interstate commerce," Saul?

 

[FA_Q2]

The government doesn't care about most gun sales in America since they go to law abiding people.

What the government does care about is the gun sales to criminals.

The government can't check every sale especially between private citizens.

What the government can do is when a gun is used in a crime, they can find out who sold that gun to the criminal.

If you sell a gun to the to someone that you know it's not going to end up in a crime and don't have that background check done, the government will never know about it. However no one can predict the future. It's a gamble that's really not worth taking in my opinion.

It's when a crime is committed that the government will get involved and will want to see that background check.

If you're foolish to sell someone a gun without a bill of sale signed and dated by you and the buyer then you deserve all that the law imposes on you. If you're too stupid to cover your butt that's your own fault.

If you don't keep the proper records of that sale and that background check then you're going to end up in trouble.

Most Americans realize that and will take the necessary steps to cover their butts.

*sigh*

No. ONce again, you seem to think that the government can magically tell when you sold a gun to someone.

I sell a glock to a known criminal after this law is passed. he goes out and shoots up a store. The government catches him, puts him in prison and then does what? Asks him who he bought the gun from? No, l can deny that and it is he said - she said. Check the serial number? No, there is no gun registry to connect me with that firearm. How are you going to connect that weapon to me in a sale? I could have sold that weapon to another party that then sold it to the criminal. I could have lost it. Or I could simply deny ever owning it in any capacity whatsoever.

Simple answer - you cant, period. The law cannot be enforced because you keep ignoring the fact that there is NO mechanism to enforce it with. It does not matter how many times you ignore that simple and GLARING FACT - magic pixie dust is not going to work to convict me of a private sale when there is ZERO method for tracking weapon sales.

THIS is the problem with those like you that keep DEMANDING that we pass 'stricter' gun control. None of those proposed laws amount to anything at all. It is 100 percent emotional without any fact at all. More 'lets just pass something so we can feel better about ourselves' when the fact show that these laws are completely ineffective at stopping crime and do not have the enforcement mechanisms in existence anyway even if they were.

 

[FA_Q2]

A similar law in Colorado was recently upheld as Constitutional by a Federal judge:


'Addressing expanded background checks, [U.S. District Judge Marcia] Krieger, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, ruled that if the government has the power to regulate sales from gun dealers, then "that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

"Thus, the Court has grave doubt that a law regulating (as opposed to prohibiting) temporary private transfers of firearms implicates the Second Amendment's guarantee at all."

She said requiring background checks for private transactions, whether in person or over the Internet, "does not prevent a person otherwise permitted to obtain a firearm from acquiring one, nor subject that person to any greater burdens than he or she would face if acquiring the weapon commercially.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest that a permissible burden on commercial sales of firearms cannot similarly be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan."'



U.S. judge upholds Colorado gun restrictions

Saul, when you were in law school in Manila, did they ever happen to mention "the commerce clause," and the ability of the federal government to regulate issues based on products traveling between states?

If Joe who lives in Denver, sells a gun to Fred who lives in Boulder, is that "interstate commerce," Saul?

Not anymore. The commerce clause means anything that exists.

I don't even know why we bother with actual words and constitutional concepts anymore when the government has erroneously decided that interstate 'commerce' include an item that you create, consume and dispose of without it EVER leaving your own land. The very concept is the height in idiocy.

The government has managed to 'constitutionally' justify anything that it wants with a few statements in the constitution that they have interpreted to one simple concept: anything I want it to say.