Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South Shore of Lake Erie
    Posts
    195

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    . I will say that the world would be far better if I could decide who is armed and who is not, and if I could require a safety test (similar to what a driver is required to show) before a CCW is allowed to carry in the world among other people. The perfect world would have me...or someone of similar mind and perspective deciding. Sadly we know this is not going down that way. Once the door is open, the decission makers can be anyone.
    This. I think the notion of a bump fire bubba walking into Wally World and picking up a belt fed machine gun off the rack is absolutely foolish. As do most people here. So, I think it’s fair to say most of us believe in “reasonable” and “common sense” gun laws. The problem is, our definition is vastly different from the regular guy.

    It it will never happen as you said but the right answer is to get pro gun people on board with ideas like this before the decision is made for us.

    There is a boatload of people in this country who have no business with a gun. And before the cult of the snake flag chimes in, remember our wonderful founders were usually talking about property owning free white males, over the age of 21. They gave little to no fucks for the masses. As far as the shall not be infringed nonsense, go yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and then claim you were exercising your first amendment. We infringe on all kinds of rights and sometimes it’s the right thing to do.

    At this time, I would have no problem with people being required to do things such as present some form of training certification such as a ccw class or hunter safety card prior to buying a weapon. The NRA’s inability to bend with the times and control the narrative in a meaningful way will be its downfall. Yes, I am a member. Yes, I think they are too focused on buying suits for Wayne.

    Let the flaming commence! Murica...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent Yamamoto View Post
    I'm slow today. UBC means what?
    As noted above,universal background checks. Since no scheme is going to give you access to NCIS, it means that all transfers will have to go through a FFL. Many versions include temporary loans (Hey, can I try your RMR?) and gifts to family members. It's a de facto registration.
    __________

    "To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Western WA
    Posts
    5,418
    Ah, yes. Thanks

    We have that in WA thanks to the latest non-sense. My understanding is that people are not complying but I don’t have anything solid to point to.
    Brent Yamamoto
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor

    Ready, willing, able. Bring it.

    Instagram: karate_at_1200fps

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Leesville LA
    Posts
    2,203
    My issue with red flag laws is that most states already have a process to remove impaired people's gun rights that utilizes due process.

    It just requires government employees to not be lazy feckless pieces of shit and for parents to not be afraid to throw their special misunderstood snowflake in a padded cell.

    Example Nic Cruze could have been comitted under Florida's baker act because deputy peterson was aware of his suicide attempt and that he was injuring himself.

    He didn't follow through probably because after he proposed it to the school administrators they shot him down because they were afraid it would be considered a juvenile arrest and they did not want to jeopardize their PROMISE program grant money. He would have got out eventually but he would not have been able to pass a nics.

    Under Arizona state law Jared Loughner's school could have notified law enforcement and had him committed because of his disturbing behavior they didn't.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention that has been praised and denounced... Served Hero and villain alike... and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history.

    KRG 9/11/11, PSGS 3/23/12, CPM 8/11/12, ACPM 8/18/12, M4 Sniper Week 2/20/13, TMCO 4/27/13, ATM 10/26/13, Wilderness Warrior Weekend 6/19/15, CRG-1 9/26/15, TASI 1/23/16, Wilderness Warrior Weekend 9/30/16

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
    As noted above,universal background checks. Since no scheme is going to give you access to NCIS, it means that all transfers will have to go through a FFL. Many versions include temporary loans (Hey, can I try your RMR?) and gifts to family members. It's a de facto registration.
    Universal Background Checks don't have to be de facto registration though they way they are usually talked about they would be.

    Private sale background checks could simply result in a "PASS / FAIL". PASS = buyer is eligible to purchase / possess a firearm. FAIL = buyer is not eligible to purchase / possess firearm.

    No need to record details of the firearm being transferred. Wouldn't even have to necessarily record the name of the seller.

    Buyer would come to seller, present the private sale background check result doc, then the sale would go through as normal. Seller would want to keep that doc as evidence that the buyer passed background check.

    If you're not stupid, when you sell to someone you don't know you keep a bill of sale anyways, this would just be kept along with it (ETA: generic 'you' here, not the personal 'you.' :) )

    ---

    I'm not convinced that UBC would make an impact on gun deaths in the US or on mass shooting frequency, but there are ways to do UBC without de facto registration.

    A slippery a slope as it may be, I'm more interested in heavily restricting ownership if a person has:

    - violent criminal history
    - violent extremist ideology
    - violent mental illness

    Trusting the government to impartially identify and effectively prohibit ownership of these parties....that's another story.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    414
    CJ,

    Good points! Existing laws should actually be enforced before creating new legislation.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,127
    [QUOTE=Sam Spade;1942572]As noted above,universal background checks. Since no scheme is going to give you access to NCIS,[quote]

    This is 2019. Putting a web front end on databases like NICS can be done in a couple hours.

    Giving individuals the ability to do their own checks falls into the "not *exactly* trivial, but certainly doable" range.

    That it's not even being considered should tell you a LOT about the mindset of the people pushing these laws.


    It's a de facto registration.
    Not as long as the Feds follow the law and destroy (delete) NICS queries after 48 hours.

    Stop laughing. No, really. Stop it. I know.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    I wonder if anyone has done a study on how many deaths are caused by -

    a). Impaired drivers
    Yes. Lots of data on this. However "impaired" usually means "drunk".


    b). Drivers too old to drive
    At least one https://www.voanews.com/usa/elderly-...-crashes-teens


    [quopte]c). Shitty cars that should not be on the road[/quote]

    Can't find one. Nor one from shitty roads that shouldn't be driven on.


    I know the arguement is that the consitution does not recognize anyone's right to drive, but that is cold comfort to a father mourning the loss of his entire family because nobody denied the 85 year old blind guy on oxygen his ability to drive on the same roads.

    The same issue presents itself with firearms, bit it is a far more incendiary discussion because in fact there is a national conspiracy to deny firearms to normal people. I will say that the world would be far better if I could decide who is armed and who is not, and if I could require a safety test (similar to what a driver is required to show) before a CCW is allowed to carry in the world among other people. The perfect world would have me...or someone of similar mind and perspective deciding. Sadly we know this is not going down that way. Once the door is open, the decission makers can be anyone.
    Which is why I think that these sorts of things should be mandated at the *state* level and enforced/processed at the county and city level. It is much easier to vote out a problematic sheriff or get a Chief fired than to change a law at the federal level that is enforced by federal bureaucrats who are only answerable to a bureaucracy that is answerable to no one.

    Who has gotten fired over the attempted coup on Trump?



    That said, I think the Red Flag laws are inevitable in the end. You can vote all you wish, but at some point a compromise will be made. Examples -
    *In abstract* I don't even oppose the general notion of a "red flag" law. They won't do much (if any) good, but yeah, people who are schizophrenic or psychotic *shouldn't* have guns.

    The problem is that (as Dorkface notes) there is no due process protection, no protection against false accusations (just like in child custody cases, and in domestic abuse cases, and in Title IX proceedings).

    Red flag laws are an invitation for abuse.

    Fix those problems so that:
    * False accusations require mandatory investigation, prosecution and penalties.
    * The accused gets full due process rights.
    * The accused can--free of charge--transfer their firearms to a friend or family member they *don't* live with, or
    * The accused's firearms are stored *for free* by the state until such time as it is determined they will not get better.

    All of these are problems that the current laws I've heard debated or read about have.

    This is not a philosophical objection--not only do we have a constitutional right to firearms, we have a constitutional right to *due process*.

    1). Border Wall, or no red flags?
    2). Additional PERMANENT tax cuts, or no red flags?
    3). Abolish Obamacare...or no Red Flags?

    Me...I may be tempted to select the former as those elements affect me and my objectives far more than the latter. But its not up to me...or you really.
    There is no such thing as "permanent" tax cuts as long as we have a democrat party in this country...well, the republican's aren't all that opposed to raising taxes either.

    Look at the "spending caps" put in place in the 1908s. EVERY TIME we run up against them they get overridden.

    Same thing with Obamacare. You simply can't trust Democrats to honor their deals, and you can't trust Republicans to hold the Democrats to them. Well, you couldn't. Someone apparently bought Cocaine Mitch and Lindsey Graham spines, but we'll see how long that lasts.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NWFL
    Posts
    14,698
    Quote Originally Posted by apamburn View Post
    Universal Background Checks don't have to be de facto registration though they way they are usually talked about they would be.

    Private sale background checks could simply result in a "PASS / FAIL". PASS = buyer is eligible to purchase / possess a firearm. FAIL = buyer is not eligible to purchase / possess firearm.

    No need to record details of the firearm being transferred. Wouldn't even have to necessarily record the name of the seller.

    Buyer would come to seller, present the private sale background check result doc, then the sale would go through as normal. Seller would want to keep that doc as evidence that the buyer passed background check.

    If you're not stupid, when you sell to someone you don't know you keep a bill of sale anyways, this would just be kept along with it (ETA: generic 'you' here, not the personal 'you.' :) )

    ---

    I'm not convinced that UBC would make an impact on gun deaths in the US or on mass shooting frequency, but there are ways to do UBC without de facto registration.

    A slippery a slope as it may be, I'm more interested in heavily restricting ownership if a person has:

    - violent criminal history
    - violent extremist ideology
    - violent mental illness

    Trusting the government to impartially identify and effectively prohibit ownership of these parties....that's another story.
    If there was free web access for doing a firearms purchase background check, it could also be used by individuals wanting to check someones background for a minimal fee without any firearm sale being contemplated.
    I assume that individual transaction would also involve some sort of paperwork for civilian being equivalent to the ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record.
    One who hammers his gun into a plow plows for those who do not....Unknown
    ...at the end of the day its not about anything else but YOU AND YOURS..... Gabe Suarez
    ....WANT not NEED is what America is all about. ..... Gabe Suarez
    Its not about how fast you can load, but about how well you can shoot ..... Someone being saved by a speed load is not something that has happened with any regularity. Gabe Suarez

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •