Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.?? Anyone?? Rye Link to comment
Chantry Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Some ignorance, they are after all politicians. Some of it is the perception of "doing something". We all know that internet sales require an FFL, but a far too large chunk of the population doesn't understand that. Link to comment
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.?? Anyone?? Rye Pure ignorance, I think. I find myself nearly yelling at the radio when the news readers report this over and over again. Link to comment
Cholla Bob Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I was under the same impression. Link to comment
Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think it means face to face in same state or otherwise. You know the 40% that is not checked now, My question is how are they going to enforce it. Link to comment
Utah Bob #35998 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Some ignorance, they are after all politicians. Some of it is the perception of "doing something". We all know that internet sales require an FFL, but a far too large chunk of the population doesn't understand that. Yup. Link to comment
Boon Doggle Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Once again Congress is going to vote on a bill that most of them have not read. Welcome to "Ogunocare". Link to comment
Oddnews SASS# 24779 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 The compromise in the Senate seems to gloss enforcement. At least it prevents the backdoor registration that was the real focus of most of these so-called "background check" laws. I sort of think whatever the Senate does is effectively moot. They don't have the votes in the House -- for which I give hearty thanks. Link to comment
Badlands Beady Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think it means face to face in same state or otherwise. You know the 40% that is not checked now, My question is how are they going to enforce it. I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK. Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it. Link to comment
Cliff Hanger #3720LR Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I see two things happening here. - 1. This is to get all (as many as possible) hand guns and long guns registered into a national data base. - 2. To get some amendment added at the last minute we don't hear about until after it's passed. - But I also don't think they have the votes in the House. Keep track of how everyone in the Senate and House vote on these gun right destroying bills. Expose those that vote against the Constitution every chance we get. Link to comment
Buck D. Law, SASS #62183 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 It's a boogey man story intended to scare more into supporting it. Tell a kid the boogey man is under the bed and it doesn't matter that he's not there, they won't sleep. The folks pushing this know that the average person can be told the boogey man is under the bed, is coming to get them...and they will buy off on it. They are counting on the average Joe buying off on it. I AM surprised that those opposing it (politicians and such) have not used it as further evidence that the folks pushing it will lie without pause. This is commonly called a scare tactic. Link to comment
Griff Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 This is commonly called a scare tactic. Isn't that the same thing as "terrorism"? And spouting outright lies to support their contentions, the leadership (if you want to call it that), in the Senate should be called on employing it! Link to comment
Buck D. Law, SASS #62183 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Isn't that the same thing as "terrorism"? And spouting outright lies to support their contentions, the leadership (if you want to call it that), in the Senate should be called on employing it! I couldn't agree more although they (the supporters) know that someone can be accused of a crime and even if acquitted, there will always be some who think you guilty. If I were on their side I'd call it an excellent use of a very willing media. Link to comment
Noz Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Do you mean that the politicians in Washington DC are accused of being dishonest? Surely not! They have my best interests at heart. Link to comment
Charles B. Gatewood SASS #48517 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 On the Weather Channel this morning a man was talking to Roker and Abrams about how you can purchase a firearm online. Of course, they were gushing about how a person could go to a website, fill their cart, and have it shipped without a background. This disinformation seems to be the common mantra with politicians, media, and antigun groups. Sadly folks think this is common practice. CBG Link to comment
Indian Jack. Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I keep reading that the bill that the senate is voting on will include background checks at gun shows and the INTERNET!! What's up with that? I thought all gun sales on the internet were subject to go to FFL's. Are we dealing with ignorance here are am I missing something? Do they mean C&B, muzzleloaders etc.?? Anyone?? Rye During my last ATF inspection at my shop the ATF agent was real nice and pleasant while checking my records. She asked about a few things and of course found no problems. She did ask me if I sold Black Powder guns, Flintlocks or Cap And Ball guns. I told her that I didnt because most of my customers want the latest and greatest. She asked me would I do a NCIS background check on someone if they bought a replica C&B revolver and I said that I didnt think I had to because it was designed before 1899. She "Suggested" that I do still have the buyer complete the 4473 form and do a background check anyway because "if they killed people in the 1860's then they could kill people today. She has a point about that but I think I would lose a sale if I did a background check on a guy buying a C&B gun. (I dont stock or sell them anyway) and yes..internet sales do go through a FFL. I Have done more than my share lately. I have received guns from people selling on Gunbroker and on several occasions I get pistols in my mailbox out front in next day mail cartons. Once I got a pistol packed in an empty Post Toasties box and sent regular mail from several states away. I think there are a few people out there who dont care what the rules are. Link to comment
Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK. Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it. I don't see how they could trace anything since there is no record of sale. Then just somebody saying I bought it from (Blank). His word againist your word. Plus all the before 1968 guns on the street. I sure am glad that last bill failed. I know the anti-gun nuts will be back. I wish they would start with the 1st amendment next time. Lets see how that goes. :lol: Link to comment
Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think how it'll work is that if they can trace an armed crime back to you as the weapon's (immediately) previous owner, and there's no record of a background check, the cops have grounds to haul you in. If the person you sell to, however, never gets caught and they never recover the gun, you're OK. Sort of like how they enforce jaywalking: It's only a crime if they catch you at it. Yea I understand that but I'm specifically talking about "internet" sales! They ARE subject to our current background checks and I am puzzled as to why the media keeps saying that this is part of the NEW" background checks! It's bull$%#@!! Rye Link to comment
Blue Wolf , SASS# 29424L Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Rye, I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad. Link to comment
Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 Rye, I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad. Yea I guess, but that happens a lot huh? NOT! Rye Link to comment
The Yankee Bandit, SASS #59258 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Rye, I think they are counting if we live in the same state and meet face to face. After internet ad. I was under the impression that one of the shining points under the expanded check was that in-state, face to face, sales were exempt from the check? Because if that's true, couldn't two pards, from the same state, that met online, meet up, do a face to face transaction with no check? Or were only transfers to family members, heirs, and loaning a gun to a hunting buddy exempted? Can someone tell me what was allowed with and without a check. I are confussedaaaa. Glad it's a moot point now. But I would still like to know. Thanks, bandit Link to comment
Madd Mike #8595 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 oRIELY last night says he thinks we (legal gun owners) would agree with registration, if tougher enforcement and mandatory 5 year sentence were imposed on gun crimes as a fed law, and passed together in the same bill I say pass the fed law WITHOUT, the gun registration dont folks know that registration did not work out so well in Canada and besides registration in some very small country (sweden or ?), is not a test that shows it will work in the USA Link to comment
Dakota Doc Martin, SASS #21774 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Bill O'Reilly has turned out to be an anti-gun bloviating buffoon. I won't listen to that blatherskite anymore Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.