Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[bgr39]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

IF the ATF come to your door and want to know where the gun is because it was used in a crime, YOU BETTER KNOW WHO YOU SOLD IT TO!!
It is called "tracing a gun used in a crime".
It might be a good idea to know who you sold your gun to, and whether or not they can legally possess/own a firearm.

 

[bgr39]

Odd that checks were blocked by claiming they were infringing on rights.

Most gun owners I know, including me, are good with instant checks. It's having to wait a week to do a check we object to. Do a check on the spot and get it done. If it's a criminal trying to buy a gun, have an arrest warrant issued on the spot

Thousands of people try to buy a gun they know they are not suppose to be in possession of, they catch it with NICS, which means they lied on federal form 4473.
Lying on form 4473 is a felony, but very few are ever prosecuted by the fed, which means that there is no penalty for trying to illegally obtain a firearm.
I'm waiting for the fed to enforce THAT law before they try to make new guns laws.

 

[bgr39]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

By "universal background checks", you really mean that you want the federal government to be the one in charge?
For all intent, there already ID "universal background checks", but the states are in control of the "checking".

 

[The Rabbi]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

IF the ATF come to your door and want to know where the gun is because it was used in a crime, YOU BETTER KNOW WHO YOU SOLD IT TO!!
It is called "tracing a gun used in a crime".
It might be a good idea to know who you sold your gun to, and whether or not they can legally possess/own a firearm.

NOpe. There is zero legal requirement to maintain those records. You sold it to some guy in the parking lot, you didnt catch his name. Perfectly legal.

 

[bgr39]

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

How about .....
Any caught illegally possessing a gun 5 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF they use that illegal gun for the commission of a crime (armed robbery, etc), 10 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF the discharge that illegal gun during the commission of a crime, 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

 

[bgr39]

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

It is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, for the liberals who keep trying to pretend they don't know what the 2nd amendment means, here is the identical statement in modern language:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Their silly vaporings over "you have to be in a militia" or whatever, are just efforts to convince the people who can't read normal English, that the amendment somehow says that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think there should be other reasonable changes to our gun laws....

Whatever these "reasonable changes" are, they only serve to restrict the law abiding without keeping guns from criminals.

but background checks are the most important

You should be happy then -- we've had them for over 20 years.

Most liberals aren't out to take everybody's guns...

But virtually everyone out to take any gun is a liberal.

but as long as that is claimed by the right, reasonable precautions will be blocked

As these "reasonable precautions" only serve to restrict the law abiding without keeping guns from criminals, they should be blocked.

Background checks are a reasonable precaution...

You should be happy then -- we've had them for over 20 years.

that the large majority of the country wants, but the NRA and their followers blocked.

Ignorance alert!
The current background check system exists because the NRA forced its addition to the 1993 Brady Act.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

No, the right to own a gun cannot be infringed. It's your all or nothing mind that's warping that. Universal background checks do not infringe on your right to have a gun. They enforce that convicted criminals criminals and children who don't have the right to buy a gun cannot buy them from legal dealers. You don't have the right to aim guns at other people or threaten them. None of those laws are infringing on your right to have a gun.

Getting government approval, registering them, dictating what you can and cannot buy. Those are infringement on gun ownership rights. The obvious is so out of the grasp of leftists, it's incredible.

Odd that checks were blocked by claiming they were infringing on rights.

We have background checks. Have had them for more than 20 years.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate. There is no right that is absolute. That said, it doesnt mean every right can be infringed out of existence either

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The fact that there are some limits is unquestionable, even though many here that don't or can't admit it. The only question is if a limit is reasonable. Some are.

Still waiting for you to cite the cases where the SCotUS has ruled a given restriction on the right to arms is Constitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate. There is no right that is absolute. That said, it doesnt mean every right can be infringed out of existence either

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The fact that there are some limits is unquestionable, even though many here that don't or can't admit it. The only question is if a limit is reasonable. Some are.

Still waiting for you to cite the cases where the SCotUS has ruled a given restriction on the right to arms is Constitutional.

The Miller case and the Heller case. Scalia's majority in opinion in Heller specifically mentions several restrictions that would be valid.

 

[kaz]

Odd that checks were blocked by claiming they were infringing on rights.

Most gun owners I know, including me, are good with instant checks. It's having to wait a week to do a check we object to. Do a check on the spot and get it done. If it's a criminal trying to buy a gun, have an arrest warrant issued on the spot

Thousands of people try to buy a gun they know they are not suppose to be in possession of, they catch it with NICS, which means they lied on federal form 4473.
Lying on form 4473 is a felony, but very few are ever prosecuted by the fed, which means that there is no penalty for trying to illegally obtain a firearm.
I'm waiting for the fed to enforce THAT law before they try to make new guns laws.

Um, where did I advocate any "new" laws? I advocating removing most of the ones we have

 

[kaz]

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

By "universal background checks", you really mean that you want the federal government to be the one in charge?
For all intent, there already ID "universal background checks", but the states are in control of the "checking".

I'd like to have the check cross State so if you're convicted in Tennessee it turns up if you by in Texas. However, who is in charge I don't really have a position on.

I view this more as a chance to toss criminals back in jail than a chance to prevent them from getting guns. You can't do the latter, but criminals are stupid. Cross State checks may be the most important for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

By "universal background checks", you really mean that you want the federal government to be the one in charge?
For all intent, there already ID "universal background checks", but the states are in control of the "checking".

I'd like to have the check cross State so if you're convicted in Tennessee it turns up if you by in Texas. However, who is in charge I don't really have a position on.

I view this more as a chance to toss criminals back in jail than a chance to prevent them from getting guns. You can't do the latter, but criminals are stupid. Cross State checks may be the most important for that.

Why do you think that isnt done already?

 

[danielpalos]

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

It is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

only if you don't work for the government; want to "harass a Judge" about it? The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[kaz]

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

By "universal background checks", you really mean that you want the federal government to be the one in charge?
For all intent, there already ID "universal background checks", but the states are in control of the "checking".

I'd like to have the check cross State so if you're convicted in Tennessee it turns up if you by in Texas. However, who is in charge I don't really have a position on.

I view this more as a chance to toss criminals back in jail than a chance to prevent them from getting guns. You can't do the latter, but criminals are stupid. Cross State checks may be the most important for that.

Why do you think that isnt done already?

I find your post a bit confusing since I don't believe I said it's not done, but my issue with the current law is the wait period. I support a background check, but I want:

1) It is instant
2) There is no record kept of the check
3) If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, an arrest warrant is automatically issued immediately

If they do not do all three, then I oppose them. The only reason to me for background checks are to violate felons and send them to prison. I also think they should require ID just like for alcohol so minors cannot buy guns in gun shops and they can verify they are searching for the right person in the background check

 

[kaz]

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

It is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

only if you don't work for the government; want to "harass a Judge" about it? The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

You don't know what that means

 

[2aguy]

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

How about .....
Any caught illegally possessing a gun 5 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF they use that illegal gun for the commission of a crime (armed robbery, etc), 10 years in prison, no exceptions.
IF the discharge that illegal gun during the commission of a crime, 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

And that is actual gun control....controlling criminals using guns to commit crimes...anything else is just trying to stop law abiding people from owning guns because of an irrational fear of guns......

 

[2aguy]

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

It is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

Exactly....already on the books.....no need for a new law

 

[hazlnut]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

That's idiotic.

Gun regs that work in Wyoming won't work in NYC.

Any reasonable person would understand that.

That's why we have so much gun violence -- piss-poor white trash states like Indiana with gun nutter and no regs flooding the market which spills over into grey and black markets.

You want solve the gun problem, you make it extremely risky and difficult for criminals, mental patients, and wife beaters to get guns and even harder to get ammo.