Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

Seldom Seen #16162

Team SASS: Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

Recommended Posts

I don't think the BOR came with restrictions, especially 2A.

 

Maybe it was the misuse of certain guns by Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson, Bonny and Clyde, etc.....that the government and society started accepting certain 'restrictions' on some firearms and/or particular regulations.

 

Its still legal to own a fully auto firearm. Its still legal to obtain sound suppressors/silencers.

 

There are just certain guidelines and/or restrictions involved to obtain them.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

If the majority of Docs are Liberal, they must also know that over 1/2 of the population probably has atleast 1 firearm in the home.

 

Docs in the South will know that probably 75% or more of homes have a gun. Probably a high % of their female patients have a gun and probably have a CCW.

 

Docs up North, atleast in some states or cities, already know that their patient base probably have very few guns.

 

I don't think there is anything new to this information.

 

Personally, my PCP is an active shooter and enjoys guns. But, he has never inquired if I own any. Maybe he's noticed it under my t-shirt in the summer time and didn't have to ask..... :lol:/>/>

 

 

..........Widder

 

 

widder maker

next time in your docs office

specificly ask him the new questions that he is suposed to ask, due to tne new o-B0mb-ah care deal

 

you sound like you have a great doc, that does not push things on that end

 

that does not mean that he is forced to put things down for the record, or lose his right to practice

 

I hope I am wrong, but it wont hurt to ask yer doc face to face, like I did with mine

 

we were not discussing guns, that was last year, I think the gun question will be phased into the other questions that they are putting into a national data base already

 

most doctors will comply, as most doc are anti gun, so we are out numbered------is the real point to consider

we need to fight any atempt at a nation data base or information, history will and can prove that ;)/>

 

edit correction

 

the nurses will be asking the new questions, then when you see your doc, ask him why, and if it is tied to 0-care

Share this post


Link to post

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Restricts the government, not the people.

 

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Restricts the government interactions with the people.

 

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

 

Restricts the government interactions with the people.

 

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

Sets forth the rights of those accused of a crime.

 

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Sets forth the rights of those accused of a tort.

 

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Restricts the government's ability to punish citizens.

 

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Best one of all as it says just because we left out some rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Hey big government, if we didn't say you could do it, you can't, those powers belong to either the states or the people

 

 

Where are these restrictions you speak of? Like many liberal you're confusing ex ante restrictions on rights with punishments for abusing rights. You have a right to speak, even though you may yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. The government does not have the right to limit your speach before the you yell fire, but they have the power to punish you if you do. An important distinction, particulary with respect to the second amendment.

 

 

All subject to interpretation by the courts Excessive bail I think bails put at hundreds of thousands of dollars is excessive, speedy trials ?some rot in prison for years before going to trial, and please do not tell me the police never do illegal searches.and the Patriot act gives the government the power to arrest you and not charge you and hold you indefinitely .Free speech say the wrong thing and see how fast you are locked up.

With all due respect you are so far left of center your remarks belong with Alex Jones.

OH! and I am not a LIB. I just do not agree with your radical thinking

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

All subject to interpretation by the courts Excessive bail I think bails put at hundreds of thousands of dollars is excessive, speedy trials ?some rot in prison for years before going to trial, and please do not tell me the police never do illegal searches.and the Patriot act gives the government the power to arrest you and not charge you and hold you indefinitely .Free speech say the wrong thing and see how fast you are locked up.

With all due respect you are so far left of center your remarks belong with Alex Jones.

OH! and I am not a LIB. I just do not agree with your radical thinking

 

At least one million voters agree with Captain Bill Burt's position;

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

 

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult

of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

 

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise

sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever

manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal

right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

 

 

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on

the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of

individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all

political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate

the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their

consent.

 

1.0 Personal Liberty

 

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves

and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other

individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make

choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of

those choices.

 

1.5 Crime and Justice

 

Government exists to protect the rights of every

individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation

of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that

place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain

the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support

restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the

criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional

safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process,

a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of

innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law

right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

 

1.6 Self-Defense

 

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual

rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This

right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other

individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second

Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for

exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of

government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership,

manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

 

 

Edited. Full text can be found @ http://www.lp.org/platform

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

 

AND also, if I have to purchase my firearms thru a FFL, then what is wrong with everyone having to purchase their firearm thru an FFL?

 

 

..........Widder

 

 

Widder,

 

Your posts are confusing.

 

In Post #8 you state "background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?" This sounds like to me you support universal background check on private firearm transactions.

 

But then in Post #51 you state "AND also, if I have to purchase my firearms thru a FFL, then what is wrong with everyone having to purchase their firearm thru an FFL?" WIth this statement you are prohibiting the sale of all firearms between private individuals.

 

SInce it is easy to create the wrong impression on the wire (just like thinking someone is name calling) would you care to clarify your position?

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

All subject to interpretation by the courts Excessive bail I think bails put at hundreds of thousands of dollars is excessive, speedy trials ?some rot in prison for years before going to trial, and please do not tell me the police never do illegal searches.and the Patriot act gives the government the power to arrest you and not charge you and hold you indefinitely .Free speech say the wrong thing and see how fast you are locked up.

With all due respect you are so far left of center your remarks belong with Alex Jones.

OH! and I am not a LIB. I just do not agree with your radical thinking

 

 

This shows how much you do not know. If a defendant sits in prison awaiting trial it is of their and their attorney's own doing, they have requested the delay which in turns stops the speedy trial clock. The right to speedy trial is alive and well and puts the burden on the prosecution. If a hurricane comes in and distroys the judicial system i.e. the courthouse, clerk's office, SAO/DA's office etc. the speedy trial clock is still running. This is why they have backup plans for such emergencies, we have actually held trials in mobile offices. It is not until the case actually goes to court or the defense asks the court/judge to continue/postpone the case does the speedy trial clock stop running.

 

As for the cops doing illegal searches, you watch to much TV whether it be CSI/Law and Order or the liberal news. As a cop I find your comment offensive in the greatest order. Cops are human we do make mistakes, and yes there some bad ones out there and an illegal search does happen, but 99% law enforcement does it right. You make it sound as if I go to work everyday planning on violating civil rights just to get some kicks or something. Just take some of the cases you are hearing on the news. A stop/search is made (and 99 our of 100 times it's a POS criminal) the case then gets put into a scumbag attorney's hands and then to a liberal judge and a stop/search gets thrown out, badguy goes free. Trust me when I say the majority of the time the benefit goes to the defendant even in clear cases it shouldn't.

 

In regards to bail, $100,000 excessive for what crime? shoplifting? maybe (ours in $120.) How bout the shoplifting of a $250,000 diamond necklace by a career criminal with numerous felony convictions on his record including flight to escape prosecution?

 

This is just like you commenting on SASS. Unless you get out from behind your TV and computer and step into the ring, keep your comments to yourself, they just piss people off.

 

JEL

Share this post


Link to post

Seldom Seen,

 

yep, that does sound alittle confusing.

 

My limited understand of the Universal Background Check is that all gun transactions would have to be handled by an FFL (a person who is licensed to sell firearms, etc...)

 

If part of the UBC is a registry of gun purchases and owners, then I'm TOTALLY against that aspect.

 

In my Post 51, it wasn't my intent to imply that everyone has to buy all their guns thru an FFL but rather when I purchase my guns at a gun store and the dealer is FFL, then I don't feel like its wrong that others follow the same process.

 

You are correct that its really hard to convey certain aspects of a conversation with mere words. You would probably find me very different if this were the same conversation at a breakfast table at Cracker Barrel. Hope you will buy! :)

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

Captain Bill Burt:

 

I sent you a PM this morning. Hope you got it.

 

I apparently received your 2nd PM but not your 1st PM.

 

Let me know if you got my PM.

 

Have a good day.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

Seldom Seen,

 

yep, that does sound alittle confusing.

 

My limited understand of the Universal Background Check is that all gun transactions would have to be handled by an FFL (a person who is licensed to sell firearms, etc...)

 

If part of the UBC is a registry of gun purchases and owners, then I'm TOTALLY against that aspect.

 

In my Post 51, it wasn't my intent to imply that everyone has to buy all their guns thru an FFL but rather when I purchase my guns at a gun store and the dealer is FFL, then I don't feel like its wrong that others follow the same process.

 

You are correct that its really hard to convey certain aspects of a conversation with mere words. You would probably find me very different if this were the same conversation at a breakfast table at Cracker Barrel. Hope you will buy! :)

 

 

..........Widder

Hey Widder,

 

IMO Universal Background Checks are nothing but a hiderace to the law abiding. I would love to know the stats of how many criminals actually use this form of transaction to purchase their firearms, I'd bet it's very, very, low. Criminals steal and/or trade for for their guns, they don't buy them. Now I would say ilegal purchases are made by person(s) who will fail the background check for other reasons be it mental or whatever, but I would still bet that's very low also. I personally do not sell to anyone I do not personally know or does not have a CCW License, I also get a bill of sale, but that's just me. I also don't sell very many guns either.

 

So the UBC are only going to effect people like us and I don't think we should have to run to a FFL to make every transaction.

 

There are enough guns laws on the books now that are not enforced so why make more. A better approach is lets start enforcing the one's we have and see how that works before trampling on our rights. I listen to comments everywhere, people saying similar things as you have, regarding things like UBC's and "reasonable restrictions" and a small part of me does agree with a few, BUT where will it stop?? You start with that and where does it end? I am a stable, law abiding, citizen. So why should I have to jump through a bunch of bearucratic hoops to buy or sell anything when it will do NOTHING to solve the issues of gun violence?

 

I hope you know me well enough to know that I am in no way putting down your views, I truly respect you as a friend and fellow ciitizen. I am just giving my point of view.

 

JEL

Share this post


Link to post

Just another thought.

 

More people are killed every year by drunk drivers. A person, no matter what their driver's license status is i.e. doesn't have one, suspended, revoked, whatever, is able to walk into a car dealer and purchase a car. In Florida they can even register it and drive it right off the lot (although illegal), with No Valid License! There are no "reasonable restrictions" when purchasing that "object" that kills multiple times more people each year than firearms do and driving is a privledge, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!

 

JEL

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get your point.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

I think he may be saying a person simply struggles with depression and takes meds. Could be added to the "Do not sell list". Where will the line be drawn?

I also think guns should be out of the wackos hands. Extreme caution should be used when going down this road. Knee jerk reactions by politicians seldom if ever result in sound common sense laws.

Ringer

Share this post


Link to post

I think he may be saying a person simply struggles with depression and takes meds. Could be added to the "Do not sell list". Where will the line be drawn?

I also think guns should be out of the wackos hands. Extreme caution should be used when going down this road. Knee jerk reactions by politicians seldom if ever result in sound common sense laws.

Ringer

You got that right brother.

Share this post


Link to post

Agree 100% with JEL. Simply enforcing the current laws would and could go along way.

Example: killing a person is murder. Killing a person who is a different race, religion etc is now a hate crime? ?? Hasn't the killer always been a hater?? We've always had appropriate punshments for most crime.

So Lets add more rules and laws regarding guns?? It will do nothing exept hassle the honest law abiding folks.

We can't talk honestly about the real social issues that is behind gun violence. That would hurt peoples feelings and you'd be branded a redneck SOB by the media.

So we'll go after the black plastic stocks, bayonet lugs and turn a blind eye at the real social issues. Sounds liike a solid plan????

View from my saddle. Are my binoculars foggy?

Ringer

Share this post


Link to post

Just another thought.

 

More people are killed every year by drunk drivers. A person, no matter what their driver's license status is i.e. doesn't have one, suspended, revoked, whatever, is able to walk into a car dealer and purchase a car. In Florida they can even register it and drive it right off the lot (although illegal), with No Valid License! There are no "reasonable restrictions" when purchasing that "object" that kills multiple times more people each year than firearms do and driving is a privledge, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!

 

JEL

Nor do they have breathalizers at gas pumps.......you know........to keep the public safe.

 

CS

Share this post


Link to post

Here are some interesting reports;


There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency.

 

According to data compiled by the FBI, the number of Americans purchasing guns has skyrocketed since Obama was elected.

 

In 2009, there were 13,984,953 background checks for Americans buying firearms. If we subtract the 1,212,860 checks completed in the month of January, the total checks for the year under Obama were 12,772,090. For 2010, background checks totaled 14,320,489. In 2011, checks were 16,336,732, and in 2012, 19,463,832. Background checks for the month of January 2013 were 2,483,230.


This totals 65,376,373 background checks completed since President Obama's first full month in office, or 44,748 background checks per day!


By comparison, the number of background checks in Obama's first term is 91.1% higher than President George W. Bush's first-term total of 34,214,066.


http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/654-million-gun-purchases-obama-took-office-91-more-bushs-first-term


Compare that to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for January – December, 2011 for decrease in crime rates for;;


Violent Crime Rape Agg. Assault



2008 – 2009 - 4.4 - 3.3 - 3.2


2009 – 2010 - 6.0 - 5.0 - 4.1


2010 – 2011 - 4.0 - 4.0 -4.0



The Federal Governments own figures prove that while firearm ownership has greatly increased during the same time period crime rates have dropped. In fact the FBI’s report shows decrease in all crime across the board. This hardly supports the need for universal background checks or the preception that the "mentally ill" are contributing to more crime.



http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-3



 



 



 



 



 

 



Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

I think what it does is make sure that when I sell one of my pistols/rifles to John Doe, who is the 2nd cousin to my Uncles neighbor, that he is not some nut case trying to obtain a firearm just for the purpose of shooting somebody.

 

Sure, we all know that criminals (and even not criminals who have a history of mental illness) will get their guns one way or the other, but personally speaking, I would prefer that Ole Widder not be one of those ways.

 

When some of our Wire pards buy a gun on the Wire, it has to go thru proper channels for the transfer. Shouldn't be any different for person to person transfers, in my opinion.

 

 

..........Widder

Widder, in most states a sale between private parties only has to go through the "proper channels" when it crosses state lines. I can do a face to face sale with no going through paper work. I have done it many times. If I don't know the buyer I ask to see their drivers license and/or their concealed handgun license. If I don't like the person's looks I don't sell them the gun period.

 

Until 1968 there were no federal laws covering gun sales other than Class 3 (machine guns & sawed off shotguns) weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1968 came about because of the assinations of JFK, RFK, & MLK. Ted Kennedy was the main proponet of the GCA 68 & I believe many senators and congressmen voted for it out of sympathy of his having lost two brothers in 5 years to assasins' guns. Some states had laws covering the possession and sale of firearms prior to 1968, but not many. The states with the most laws were the New England states. The state of New York had the most restrictive, known as the Sullivan Act passed in 1920, I believe.

 

I bought my first handgun in 1966 by walking into the store and picking out what I wanted, showing the clerk my drivers license to prove I was over 21, & handing him the cash. He didn't retain any information about me other than his carbon copy of the handwritten bill of sale. The driver's license didn't have a photo on it at that time.

 

In the past 44 years a myriad of gun laws have been passed and not one of them has ever saved a life. A criminal doesn't care about laws. That's why he's called a criminal. A criminal or mentally ill person will get a gun on the black market, or he will break into your home and steal years or he'll make one. Ever heard of a zip gun? Take a piece of pipe with the right inside diameter, a hack saw, a file, a nail for a firing pin and a small spring of sufficient tension and a 22 round and you have a homemade gun in less than a half hour. Sure it's inaccurate as it can be. But it doesn't have to be if you press it against the back of your victims' head. If you give these power mad politicians one inch they will take a mile. make no mistake about it, they don't give a damn about saving lives or children. They want power and the control it gives them and they will lie, cheat, steal, and even kill, and play on the emotions of their colleagues and constituents to get it. We must not fall prey to them if this nation is to survive. We must not back down nor give in. Now is the time to stop them and striup them of their power by booting them out of office and makeing sure they can't even get elected dog catcher.

 

The moto of every freedom loving, gun owning, American must be "NOT ONE MORE INCH"!

 

Rant mode off

Share this post


Link to post

This shows how much you do not know. If a defendant sits in prison awaiting trial it is of their and their attorney's own doing, they have requested the delay which in turns stops the speedy trial clock. The right to speedy trial is alive and well and puts the burden on the prosecution. If a hurricane comes in and distroys the judicial system i.e. the courthouse, clerk's office, SAO/DA's office etc. the speedy trial clock is still running. This is why they have backup plans for such emergencies, we have actually held trials in mobile offices. It is not until the case actually goes to court or the defense asks the court/judge to continue/postpone the case does the speedy trial clock stop running.

 

As for the cops doing illegal searches, you watch to much TV whether it be CSI/Law and Order or the liberal news. As a cop I find your comment offensive in the greatest order. Cops are human we do make mistakes, and yes there some bad ones out there and an illegal search does happen, but 99% law enforcement does it right. You make it sound as if I go to work everyday planning on violating civil rights just to get some kicks or something. Just take some of the cases you are hearing on the news. A stop/search is made (and 99 our of 100 times it's a POS criminal) the case then gets put into a scumbag attorney's hands and then to a liberal judge and a stop/search gets thrown out, badguy goes free. Trust me when I say the majority of the time the benefit goes to the defendant even in clear cases it shouldn't.

 

In regards to bail, $100,000 excessive for what crime? shoplifting? maybe (ours in $120.) How bout the shoplifting of a $250,000 diamond necklace by a career criminal with numerous felony convictions on his record including flight to escape prosecution?

 

This is just like you commenting on SASS. Unless you get out from behind your TV and computer and step into the ring, keep your comments to yourself, they just piss people off.

 

JEL

Looks like I was correct

Share this post


Link to post

A legend in your own mind!

 

That comes from not being at a SASS shoot in a decade and daily posts on the Wire daily in a need to inflate his ego. Heck I wonder if he is still legally able to own a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post

Until I post the TSBB Rules of the Road, I'll not delete this thread outright but will lock it as we want to avoid posts that become contentious on the TSBB.in tone

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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