Gun in nightstand

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, the laws were pointed out. I certainly didn't say they were toothless or imossible to enforce. I pointed out how lax enforcement has been.

You said there were toothless and impossible to enforce. That's your position. Not mine.

I maintain that we should try to enforce the laws that we have. I pointed out where enforcement worked in an urban setting. Sadly, the Richmond, VA experiment, while a success, had little infuence on law enforcement, particularly at the Federal level.

We have a BATFE that makes no effort, and we have a DOJ that not only makes no effort, but takes the bizarre step to give guns to criminals, fully automatic weapons even! Weapons that were then used to kill Federal agents.

How perverse has our government become? Don't prosecute criminals? Aid other criminals? Equip them with machine guns?

And the answer to this pathetic enforcement is to pass more laws? The answer is to restrict the rights of law abiding folks? Are you kidding me?
 
Last edited:
Okay, you say law enforcement is the problem, I'll accept that all the same. How do we fix that problem?

Also, at NO point did I suggest anything that could be interpreted as "restrict the rights of law abiding folks." Not once. That's in your head because I think you're used to dealing with people in these types of discussions who may want that.

Well, unless you consider it a "right" to sell weapons to felons, then yeah... I totally did. But that's a ridiculous thing to consider to be a "right."
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14

There absolutely is a requirement that a private seller determine that the buyer not be a prohibited person. Because, to sell to a prohibited person is a FELONY.

Absolutely not true in all states..like Pa.
In Pa..A private citizen can do a face to face sale of a long gun (shotgun/rifle) to another Pa. citizen. He is not required to: ask for an I.D., keep a paper record, verify the person may buy a gun. A dealer is required to perform these 3 items.

A proposal to close the private sale loopholes was rejected in Pa. in 2013.
 
Last edited:
It absolutely IS true in PA, Al. How can you miss that point?

It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.

In Federal court.

Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl

I absolutely disagree.

Regulating a legal item is completely different than maintaining a ban on an illegal item.


My point, even if it was poorly made, was that your door locks are a personally-chosen physical supplement to existing legislation that prohibits a certain action, which is me entering your home. Under certain circumstances, such as you inviting me in, me entering your home is a completely legal activity. Under other circumstances, such as when I'm not invited in, me entering your home is an illegal activity.

In the legal sense, you can draw a parallel with firearms sales (especially handguns). Under certain circumstances, a handgun sale is completely legal. Under others, it's a felony. In the case of home security, you can take a physical measure yourself to supplement the law. But in the world of firearms sales and ownership, I'm not sure what physical measure can supplement the laws that already regulate that. In other words, you're applying the example of a physical supplement that you have made in your own home to the firearms realm, and I'm not sure what the analog is to your front door deadbolt.

"Smart legislation" is a loaded term, pardon my pun. What's smart to some will be seen as overtly controlling by others. And what's reasonable to some will be seen as not going nearly far enough by others. I absolutely agree with you in concept: keep the guns out of the hands of felons so they have to go through an armed citizen to find one. Putting that into practice is, clearly, much more difficult.

This is going to sound cheap, but my intent is genuine: how do propose we, as a nation, tackle this problem? Given the legislation already out there that attempts to regulate firearms possession and distribution, what additional legislation would you write to help control this further? Or, how would you more effectively enforce the rules that we already have? I'm not talking in broad ideas here...they're plentiful enough and easy to conjure up. It's putting the pen to paper and actually crafting effective legislative language that is extremely difficult.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It absolutely IS true in PA, Al. How can you miss that point?

It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.
In Federal court.
Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.

Admit for once you are wrong:
" A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector."

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
This is going to sound cheap, but my intent is genuine: how do propose we, as a nation, tackle this problem? Given the legislation already out there that attempts to regulate firearms possession and distribution, what additional legislation would you write to help control this further? Or, how would you more effectively enforce the rules that we already have? I'm not talking in broad ideas here...they're plentiful enough and easy to conjure up. It's putting the pen to paper and actually crafting effective legislative language that is extremely difficult.


Astro14 says this....

Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.

In Federal court.

Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.


If there are laws on the books that are supposed to do what I think should be done, but are failing, then those laws need to be written in a way that makes them effective and allows law enforcement to do their jobs.

However you choose to do it, write it so that it's possible to catch people, and prosecute people. Then wait ten years and see where we're at in terms of our violent death rates and adjust as necessary.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It absolutely IS true in PA, Al. How can you miss that point?

It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.
In Federal court.
Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.

Admit for once you are wrong:
" A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector."

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]



Then I read this ^

If it's not illegal, as this post strongly suggests, then I believe it should be.

No rights are restricted for the average law abiding citizen. If anything it's just a minor inconvenience.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It absolutely IS true in PA, Al. How can you miss that point?

It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.
In Federal court.
Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.

Admit for once you are wrong:



I think he's right, but don't feel like writing a brief on it.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
The "get more guns into the hands of private owners for self defense" argument can get some traction in Mexico, but when it comes to Australia, the UK, Japan, and other countries... their homicide rates are so low that adding guns won't help.


So guns are only beneficial in certain countries with high homicide rates? Got it.

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.

I think this is great thing to have written into a constitution, but long guns are the practical tool to fight a war, not hand guns.
Anyways, I like the situation we have up here, with low handgun ownership, and a low enough crime rate that on balance, the vast majority of people don't want handguns to become prevalent.
 
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
I really wish the NRA would allow some serious government studies on the matter. Their obstruction at every turn makes them look guilty.


The NRA doesn't ALLOW or not ALLOW the govt to do anything. Where did you get that ridiculous idea? They also don't obstruct anything. They simply dont want their 2nd amendment rights infringed upon. Really simple concept to grasp.

The fact that thousands and thousand of minorities/inner city folks gain access to firearms and kill each other is of no concern to me. I simply don't care. I DO CARE if you/they attempt to pass legislation in a laughable manner in an attempt to prevent inner city violence. Legislation that infringes on my right. The only way to prevent inner city violence is to lock up the riff raff, or kill the raff raff. There is no other way. You can't legislate morals.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
So guns are only beneficial in certain countries with high homicide rates? Got it.

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.


Is this a joke or am I supposed to take this seriously?

It's so far out of context and misrepresentative of my comments that it has to be a joke.

We're talking crime and violent death rates, not revolution.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It absolutely IS true in PA, Al. How can you miss that point?

It's a Federal law. You don't have to go through NICS, but selling to a prohibited person is a felony.
In Federal court.
Federal law does apply in every state, even PA, but this particular one never gets prosecuted.

Admit for once you are wrong:
" A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector."

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]



Al - I'm glad you looked it up, that's the law to which I was referring...from your previous posts, about what's already illegal and what's not, it seemed that you had not heard of it.

But wrong on what? I've made a lot of points in this thread, so which one are you taking exception to?

That Federal law supersedes PA law?
That dealers at gunshows have to conduct background checks?
That there are "prohibited" persons?
That selling to a prohibited person is a felony?

You've made the last point for me by quoting the law.

Now, if you want to get technical, and parse words, I said selling to a prohibited person is a felony, and the law states that it's OK if the seller does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited...that's a fine point...so, if the seller knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that the person is prohibited, then it's a felony.

The difference hinges on what the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe about the buyer.

I knew that but I didn't make that technical point in the posts above because the larger points were more important, and typing on the iPad gets tedious.

And there are no prosecutions for selling to a prohibited person, or more precisely, to a person that you have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited. This is critical. This law is never enforced, never prosecuted. If we never pulled people over for speeding, what good would posting a speed limit sign accomplish?

How exactly, would you determine that it's OK to sell a gun to someone if you were a private seller? What steps would be reasonable and prudent to determine if they were prohibited from owning a gun? The Lautenberg Amendment makes it illegal to own a gun if you've been convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence (the military is not excluded from this by the way, I had sailors who could not have an M-9 pistol issued to them, but they were OK to man an automatic grenade launcher or machine gun). I have no issues selling a gun to my relatives, or close friends, because I know them ...but selling to a stranger, with no due diligence on your part? That's utterly irresponsible and I contend that it should be prosecuted as such. Any good lawyer would shred you in court if you sold a gun to somebody and made no attempt to determine if they were allowed to possess a gun.

If you knew that you could be prosecuted for selling to a prohibited person, wouldn't you take steps to determine the buyer's background?

Maybe you wouldn't, but the point is this: it never gets prosecuted, never gets enforce. So, no one follows the law. Most people on this forum, most gun owners, even, aren't aware of that stipulation on prohibited persons.

And your plan is to simply pass another law?

Another law to be ignored because no one is aware of it? And no one enforces it?

How about Harris and Klebold, the killers from Columbine, who broke so many Federal and State laws? Did they, in contemplating mass murder with Propane tank bombs (which were legal to acquire, but illegal to build), stop to consider that they might also be breaking a few laws? The girl that committed multiple felonies, Robyn Anderson, was NEVER PROSECUTED for buying those two psychos guns. She committed felonies, but wasn't prosecuted...

https://web.archive.org/web/20010221030107/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/1003robyn.shtml

So, in the absence of enforcement, what good is the law? And what good are even more laws?
 
I don't know exactly how government deals with ineffectual laws besides amending them to produce the intended effect. Maybe the answer isn't "pass a new law", maybe the answer is "fix the broken one."
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: bubbatime

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.

I think this is great thing to have written into a constitution, but long guns are the practical tool to fight a war, not hand guns.
Anyways, I like the situation we have up here, with low handgun ownership, and a low enough crime rate that on balance, the vast majority of people don't want handguns to become prevalent.


However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to self defense is an individual right, in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which a middle class, urban, person of color was denied his right to self defense and sued the District over that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And a handgun is a far better tool for the exercise of the individual right to self defense than a long gun.

I'm glad you like it up there....you should like how your own country does it or you should seek to change your country, or move...and Canadians lack the means to exercise their right to self defense. Which really only affects the Canadians of color, or who live in the city, or are poor.

They have no access to the means of self-defense, like Mr. Heller, but they, like similar citizens of the US, are the ones who are truly affected by violent crime.
 
Good gawd I get sick of hearing the "tyrannical gov't" argument. Like that's really going to happen. Take the most armed community and all the gov't needs is just one Cobra helicopter to take care of business. No one in their right mind would use their weapons against our police, sheriffs, military, etc. We elect our gov't. here in the USA don't forget.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: bubbatime

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.

I think this is great thing to have written into a constitution, but long guns are the practical tool to fight a war, not hand guns.
Anyways, I like the situation we have up here, with low handgun ownership, and a low enough crime rate that on balance, the vast majority of people don't want handguns to become prevalent.


However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to self defense is an individual right, in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which a middle class, urban, person of color was denied his right to self defense and sued the District over that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And a handgun is a far better tool for the exercise of the individual right to self defense than a long gun.

I'm glad you like it up there....you should like how your own country does it or you should seek to change your country, or move...and Canadians lack the means to exercise their right to self defense. Which really only affects the Canadians of color, or who live in the city, or are poor.

They have no access to the means of self-defense, like Mr. Heller, but they, like similar citizens of the US, are the ones who are truly affected by violent crime.


Canada also has 1/3 the need to use self defense when compared to the United States, going off of how much better they are at not murdering one another than we are.

He's also talking about weapons of war, so I'm not entirely sure how that relates to self defense. Put me on the field of war and ask me to choose between an M-4/16 or an M9 and I'm choosing the long-gun every single time without a moment's hesitation.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
I don't know exactly how government deals with ineffectual laws besides amending them to produce the intended effect. Maybe the answer isn't "pass a new law", maybe the answer is "fix the broken one."


I understand your point...

But if we never enforce, does amendment mean anything?

If we never ticket/fine people for running red lights, will they then stop running them just because we amended the law?

Red light running became epidemic, until we installed red light cameras that actually enforced the law...now, I have issues with those cameras, on the presumption of innocence, etc., but even though there was no civil penalty, the monetary consequences alone caused the behavioral change...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
20,000 miles in a CX-5 GT-R
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
19K
14Accent
dnewton3
  • Locked
gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse
7 8 9
Replies
172
Views
37K
dnewton3
dnewton3
  • Locked
Another LEO action shooting
2
Replies
23
Views
5K
Win
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Mass homicide plot in Halifax foiled
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
uc50ic4more
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Security Guard involved in fatal shooting: Toronto
2
Replies
20
Views
7K
stockrex
Back
Top