Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Gun Show "Loophole" question


Long Branch Louie

Recommended Posts

"Saying gun control cannot be the only solution to the problem, Obama also expressed support for making it easier for Americans to get access to mental health care - "at least as easy as access to a gun."

 

WOWZERS!!

 

This doesn't mean he's gonna make it easy to get "Mental health care"......He's just gonna make it that hard to get a gun!

 

 

 

 

Forgive me if this was already said in this post.......I just skimmed through after reading this.

 

But if it has already been said..........it was worth saying again!

 

~EE Taft~

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Think about this. You won't be able to sell a Vaquero to a SASS pard you know well. NO ftf means no ftf sales, regardless if it's your brother inlaw who's a retired cop or the clergyman who wants a gun for protection of his flock and hasn't got the money for a full retail piece.

It's a slippery slope indeed..

 

UB, you've lost me. How does "no private sales" translate to "no FTF sales"? Why can't you do a FTF in the presence of a dealer? Every gun show I've been to, every table is run by a dealer, and every one of them would be glad to do the paperwork for a small fee. Or maybe a large fee; I imagine you'd have to shop around. If you're not at a show, agree to meet your customer at a gun shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UB, you've lost me. How does "no private sales" translate to "no FTF sales"? Why can't you do a FTF in the presence of a dealer? Every gun show I've been to, every table is run by a dealer, and every one of them would be glad to do the paperwork for a small fee. Or maybe a large fee; I imagine you'd have to shop around. If you're not at a show, agree to meet your customer at a gun shop.

 

All I can say is wow. This is what will be our end as free gun owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't usually see too much detail from the news reports about the gun "source" involved in most of these shootings ... but it doesn't appear (from what was reported) that there were too many illegally obtained guns.

 

They bought them accross the counter or got them from a friend (who promptly claimed the shooter stole them) or at home.

 

I haven't seen too many single action revolvers, lever rifles or double barrel shotguns showing up in crime news reports either ...

 

... but ... I sure would like to be able to go to the computer and punch in some serial numbers ... (and I bet a bunch of other people would too ...).

 

Watching some of the TV last night ... you have to get tired of hearing the word "clips" and had to laugh at O'Riley berating one of his guests about "just WHO" is going to do (and pay for) background checks??" ... The guest unable to answer ... revealing that neither had a clue about processes (despite how effectively they are allowed to operate) that are already in place ...

 

Between social media and TV news these days ... it's all frantic lynch mob ... and getting anything (useful) done on either side is unlikely ...

 

IMHO anyhow ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is wow. This is what will be our end as free gun owners.

 

So, how many of your guns haven't been bought through a dealer? Have they *all* been private sales?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning NPR reported that a goal of the Binden Bunch will be the end of private sales without a background check.

 

When I first moved to TN in 1990 private sales were regulated. Before a transfer could be legally made you had to take the transaction to the sheriff's office and have it approved. That changed a couple of years later with the establishment of the national background check program. So I guess we could just turn the clock back.*

 

SQQ

 

*I'm told this system dated back to post-Reconstruction times. The 1870 TN Constitution guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but also reserved the the Legislature the power to regulate the carrying of weapons with any eye toward reduction of crime. This "local approval" process was primarily aimed at preventing the newly manumitted slaves from acquiring firearms. That would give the KKK and other groups a free hand in efforts to maintain white rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UB, you've lost me. How does "no private sales" translate to "no FTF sales"? Why can't you do a FTF in the presence of a dealer? Every gun show I've been to, every table is run by a dealer, and every one of them would be glad to do the paperwork for a small fee. Or maybe a large fee; I imagine you'd have to shop around. If you're not at a show, agree to meet your customer at a gun shop.

I'm referring to an assumed eventual ftf ban across the board, not just gun shows. as far as meeting at a gun shop. That's a 75 mile round trip for m. WE don't all have a neighborhood gun shop. In fact, we don't all have even a neighbordood. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how many of your guns haven't been bought through a dealer? Have they *all* been private sales?

 

None of your business...

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a bunch of other stuff could start creeping into the background check database … like prescriptions involving impairment … medical marijuana … depression drugs etc etc … (the TSA list … to which I can attest is sobering when a name identical to yours pops up and you are trying to fly home … cops start milling around in the lounge area behind you … everyone else in the line vacates etc etc … sigh …).

 

Harassment perhaps … like in the 60’s … if a cop saw you driving a car … (and you were a teenager) you were likely to get pulled over for a license/registration check (not much in the human rights value department but probably deterred a lot of vandalism/mischief). I complained about the third time it happened to me and the cop said ... get used to it ... your young ... you just started driving ... and it's going to happen ... if your clean you are on your way.

 

Translating to … some overactive agency serving a warrant at a local shoot and writing down serial numbers w/ names so they could be checked …

 

Heck … never happen …

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Are you collecting data for the government?

 

Sonny boy, I *am* the government. Or haven't you been paying attention?

 

No, I'm not collecting data, I'm just trying to figure out whether your arguement has any basis in reality, or you're just spouting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a bunch of other stuff could start creeping into the background check database … like prescriptions involving impairment … medical marijuana … depression drugs etc etc …

 

Part of the current debate, which most people here on the Wire seem to favor, is better funding, diagnosing, reporting and treating mental illness with a view to (among other considerations)keeping certain people away from guns. Sounds to me like that is the very kind of information that *should* be included in a background check. Do you really want people under fairly constant impairment to have access to guns? What good is it to diagnose, say, a severe paranoid, but to deny that information to the gun dealer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sonny boy, I *am* the government. Or haven't you been paying attention?

 

No, I'm not collecting data, I'm just trying to figure out whether your arguement has any basis in reality, or you're just spouting.

Oh I paid attention, I caught your GOV status a few post ago, not supprised your toting the Party Line.

 

KK

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have in my home, gun safe, tool box, or under the hood of my vehicle is none of your, the government, or anyone else's business until a crime is committed with it! PERIOD!!! The records kept for the sale and transfer of firearms by the dealer should only ever be accessed when a crime has been committed with that firearm. What I sell to my friends or family is my business and no one else's until a crime has been committed with that item.

 

I pay taxes for the right to be a citizen and for the right of privacy as much as for services and governmental infrastructure.

 

In a poll conducted the night before last on a local CBS affiliate, 86% of those responding favored allowing teachers and school administrators the use and possession of guns for safety and protection of the student population.

 

The prevention of mayhem in supposed safe zones is impossible without either abundant armed security or the allowing of personal protective armament in those zones. PERIOD!! END OF SENTENCE!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Badlands Beady, you have still not answered my offer of compromise.

 

I want ALL of your guns. Please send them to me NOW.

 

Why do you not answer?

 

I offered the compromise, for now, to let you keep one of your guns. See, I can be reasonable.

 

So how come you are not willing to deal. You are showing yourself to be completely unreasonable. I can send you my address of my dealer if that helps. We can even go through a dealer, so that should satisfy you in that regard.

 

This is a sincere request, so why do not not answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the current debate, which most people here on the Wire seem to favor, is better funding, diagnosing, reporting and treating mental illness with a view to (among other considerations)keeping certain people away from guns. Sounds to me like that is the very kind of information that *should* be included in a background check. Do you really want people under fairly constant impairment to have access to guns? What good is it to diagnose, say, a severe paranoid, but to deny that information to the gun dealer?

 

I'm not saying I am against it ... I would rather some of these same impariment conditions (temp or otherwise) not operate motor vehicles either ... but ... I honestly doub't the ability of anyone (especially the government) to be able to maintain such a database and maintain it an accurate and timely manner.

 

Plus+ the chance that it would be exploited/mis-used for all the wrong things is pretty much a given ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Badlands Beady,

 

(The Hill) Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week's mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. "I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Jackson Lee said on the House floor.

 

Or you could send them to me, instead!!! I'll take good care of them!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Beady. He's got grit. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the Guns shows in Colorado, their is a sign posted and transaction on gun show grounds must go thru a FFL for background check but that doesn't keep you from exchanging info and then following thru with the deal some where else perfectly legal.

KK

 

Private sales are still legal in Colorado, but I suspect that may not last long. With a Democrat-controlled legislature and governor, I expect private sales to be mandated, if not other restrictions. Denver already has an "assault weapons" ban that has survived two challenges in the state supreme court, though not in surrounding areas. Sales through FFL's must go through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which also runs the NCIS check. The CBI check includes looking for domestic violence orders, which prohibit sales to those subject to that order. This list is updated only every six months, so it is probable that quicker updates will be mandated by the legislature. Problem there is that CBI doesn't have the staff to handle this. Right after the November election, the sale of guns went ballistic :rolleyes: to the point that the waiting period for a check went from about 15-45 minutes to over 24 hours!

 

I certainly agree that we will have to strongly oppose a lot of proposed restrictions on gun types and magazine capacities, but some of this is going to hit, regardless. As "Chris" said in The Magnificent Seven, "Sometimes you bend with the wind...or you break." <_<

 

The only hope for stopping nut cases is increased treatment of mental health problems!

 

Happy Holidays! God Bless America! :FlagAm:

 

Your humble servant,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sonny boy, I *am* the government. Or haven't you been paying attention?

 

That attitude is a great example of why our founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in the constitution. A perfect example of a government bureaucrat who not only thinks he knows what's best for others, but feels free to talk down to anyone with the temerity to hold an opinion different from his. The 2nd amendment is one reason folks like that are hesitant to show up on your doorstep and ask for your papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Badlands Beady, you have still not answered my offer of compromise.

 

I want ALL of your guns. Please send them to me NOW.

 

Why do you not answer?

 

I offered the compromise, for now, to let you keep one of your guns. See, I can be reasonable.

 

So how come you are not willing to deal. You are showing yourself to be completely unreasonable. I can send you my address of my dealer if that helps. We can even go through a dealer, so that should satisfy you in that regard.

 

This is a sincere request, so why do not not answer?

 

For it to be a compromise, we each have to give in order to get. So, since it was your idea, I suggest it's up to you to show good faith by sending me your guns before I send you mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have in my home, gun safe, tool box, or under the hood of my vehicle is none of your, the government, or anyone else's business until a crime is committed with it! PERIOD!!!

 

That is exactly the problem everyone is talking about: How to stop these massacres before they happen. After they happen, it's too late. Is that your preference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly the problem everyone is talking about: How to stop these massacres before they happen. After they happen, it's too late. Is that your preference?

No, BB.... that's not what people are talking about at all. You are suggesting that we should all be subject to search before probable cause. What we're suggesting is the same logic used when we shut the door to the cockpit, armed the pilots and put undercover TSA on the planes. The left all SCREAMED that we'd all be killed in a bloody crossfire whenever we boarded an airplane. Instead what has happened is .... nothing.....

 

If schools were as secure as police stations then we'd hear about the same amount of mass killings at our schools as we have at police stations.... NONE. Like everytime an armed citizen is present when some nut shows up shooting in a public venue. Your idea that we can stop criminals before they commit crime by violating the rights of law abiding citizens is exactly what the rest of us who want to remain FREE MEN are talking about with regards to all of our rights.

 

Your logic is flawed in the same way that the advice for rape victims to lie quiet, battered women to seek counseling; and homeowners to just dial 911. These are the recommendations of willing victims not the course of action for free men and women. How many times do we have to read about some gal who has a restraining order against someone dying because they violated the restraining order before she was able to provide her own protection?

 

How many GUN FREE ZONES have to become FREE FIRE ZONES before you're willing to concede that the only way to stop a mad man is with deadly force rather than registering the guns of law abiding citizens in the community and then criminalizing them for wanting to be ready to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property?

 

What we're seeing at gun shows is WE THE PEOPLE voting with our feet and our wallets. America isn't willing to accept your prescription of remaining a victim any longer. Neither are the governors of several states including TX. God Bless Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that "gun free zones" exist at all is contrary to the very most fundamental escense of the Second ammendment. You are preventing the individual from having the same level of armament for protection as the agressor has to assault you or others. It is simply ridiculous to subject anyone to that exposure.

 

Where the individual is granted the freedom to choose whether or not to prepair, equip, and defend himself, the rate of violent crime has consistantly diminished. When you set an artificial level to which a person may do any of these things, ie. restrict the kind of equipment allowed, the malefactor will always seek to gain the advantage. If I'm only allowed to use a single shot pistol, my attacker will almost certainly chose a revolver. If I may only use a revolver, my adversary will likely aquire a large capacity semi-automatic. The bad guy doesn't have any interest in playing by the rules.

 

If my physical history prevents me from owning or possessing a weapon for self defense because of the medication I once used, and I am a law abiding citizen, the gang banger from down the street can do me harm and I'm not allowed to use equal force to prevent it.

 

When the bad guy is the government, why should I not be able to defend mine and myself with the same level of armament as I'm facing?

 

All of these examples are out there for you to see in the daily news. Look at Syria! You hope and pray that it won't happen to you, but you can see that the possibility exists!

 

My wife teaches at a school where a portion of the population is extremely disadvantaged. She has children in her classroom who have parents, (I'm using the term loosely) that are drug users and criminals. My wife is a competent shooter and an absolutely outstanding teacher who would be more than capable of defending her students and herself, but she is prevented from doing so by state and federal statute. I worry constantly that she or others in that school will come to harm and there's nothing she or I can legally do to prevent it.

 

In my previous post I neglected to say that it is nobody's business what I have on my person as well to defend myself until such time I am forced, (and it would be a case of being forced) to call upon it!!

 

Until reliable clairvoyance, either devinely endowed upon us or mechanicaly/electronicaly invented and proven, becomes available we will never be able to completely, or even reliably prevent these terrible events from occuring. We CAN eliminate the "free fire zones" and arm ourselves to lessen the likelyhood and severity of such events.

 

My dad used to say that the individual who truly wishes to destroy himself can't be stopped. He was a LEO for most of his life and he feared being involved in a "suicide by cop" incident most of all. He taught everyone in our immediate family how to handle every weapon we had and when and where to use them. He would be appalled at the way things are going right now, and even more so at some of the attitudes seen here!

 

So to answer your question, Beady, my preference is to be able and allowed to stop these things from happening if I'm ever confronted with the situation, and for others to be able and allowed to as well!! Armed and prepaired is far better for all than being another potential victim!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does Joe Biden...

 

GG

Joe ain't a cowboy shooter. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So to answer your question, Beady, my preference is to be able and allowed to stop these things from happening if I'm ever confronted with the situation, and for others to be able and allowed to as well!! Armed and prepaired is far better for all than being another potential victim!!!!!

 

OK, fair enough, and I'm not necessarily opposed. But it seems to me that you are proposing that what should be the last line of defense is, instead, the only defence. My own preference is for a layered approach, multiple lines of defence. I agree with whoever it was on TV who said that both extremes have it wrong: it's not mental health or gun control, it's mental health and gun control. Even so, I am convinced that, in the best of all possible worlds, more massacres will happen regardless of what we come up with.

 

And, again, "gun control," is not necessarily a bad thing, everyone here approves of some form of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe ain't a cowboy shooter. ;)/>

 

Has anybody ever thought of inviting him to a match?

 

Hey UB, a question just occurred to me: If an NRA Life Member commits a gun crime, does the NRA boot him or is a Life Member a member for life? Seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever thought of inviting him to a match?

 

Hey UB, a question just occurred to me: If an NRA Life Member commits a gun crime, does the NRA boot him or is a Life Member a member for life? Seriously.

I have no idea. Does SASS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the ONLY form of "gun control" I agree to is if you shoot, you should hit what you shoot at.

 

People control, disguised as "gun control" is not the answer. I hear "the wild west" bantered about and used to describe the purported result of concealed carry and ownership of guns all the time. In truth and actuallity the violent death rate and the murder rate in the "wild west" in it's entirety was much lower than the same rates in each of several eastern "civilized cities" at that time. The old addage "An armed society is a polite society," is true to an extent that most folks are suprised to find.

 

Layers of defense are as follows. Social mores being taught to generations appropriately and continually by family and comunity, education, the law of the land, law enforcement and the judicial system, and finally personal defense. When we are willing and allowed to defend ourselves and others with whatever means needed and available, the other layers work far more eficiently!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And, again, "gun control," is not necessarily a bad thing, everyone here approves of some form of it.

I've always found it interesting that we as a group of shooters, and all shooters in general canonize the old west LEO's who took guns away from the cowboys on entering "their" towns, but we villify Mayors like Emmanuel and Brown, etc. who seek to do the same thing now.

 

I personally only approve and abide by one form of gun control. Like Ted Nugent on his now famous interview, I maintain that the 2nd Amendment is "my carry permit" and short of nuclear arms, my view is that the Constitution's wording was specific in "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" to mean that the citizenry was to be empowered with the same arms that any tyrannical government may field.

 

FREE MEN have wholesale abdicated their moral duty to protect and provide for their own lives and the lives of their loved ones long enough. Personally I made the choice long ago after a lesson that I'll never forget and do my best to never repeat, too.

 

So your assertion that "EVERYONE HERE APPROVES OF SOME FORM OF IT." Is just wrong. We only tolerate it and many of us don't abide by it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For it to be a compromise, we each have to give in order to get. So, since it was your idea, I suggest it's up to you to show good faith by sending me your guns before I send you mine.

 

You obviously don't understand the situation at all. This is about your guns, not mine. How silly of you. Really.

 

I made the offer and now you do not want to accept my compromise. You obviously are not willing to do your part to to address this situation.. I made the offer and now you want to totally reject it? That is not compromise on your part....

 

Just as the government is not offering us anything - just give up a major portion of our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.