Guns is a hot topic now, so I'm just adding to the conversation.
I know some think that Obama and the lefties are just scheming to disarm gun owners so they can take away the revolution/revolt equation to enact their radical transformation towards Lords and Serf society.
Others, evoked by uncontrollable emotions think that guns are to prolific and causes uncontrollable violence, unless government steps in with more gun control.
One argument I hear from the gun owners about gun control is that criminals will be left with all the guns and that violence will dramatically increase because law abiding gun owners or those who want to own guns will not have the ability to protect themselves.
A few things I always wondered is how criminals get guns in the first place. So I typed that in a search engine and checked out a few info sites about this subject.
If you think criminals steal them from gun owners is the biggest factor, you will be wrong. According to the ATF, the two largest factors on how criminals obtain guns is through Straw Sales (meaning that they just have somebody who can legally buy gun, get them for them.) and through corrupt FFL dealers who don't care who they sale them to.
The fact is that the proliferation of guns in America, the speed in which one can buy a gun (especially from gun shows), and the ease on which one can buy them is how the vast majority of criminals obtain guns.
If you made it difficult for a person to legally purchase guns, you will have in fact greatly limit the access for which criminals can obtain guns, which will in turn reduce the amount of gun violence and criminal activity that use guns and society will be a safer place.
I'm not saying this changes anything with the mental illness factor in mass killing violence or will reduce violent assaults. Gangs might just go back to baseball bats, chains and switch blades, but you can reduce criminals use of guns by gun control.
I'm not paranoid nor need to make up for a small appendage like a lot of you gun nuts who brag about having a CC permit and packing heat all the time. My take is that I always default to freedom so I'm all for people owning guns and packing heat everywhere they go and able to get a gun as easy as it is to get a candy bar. But I do recognize that there is negative consequences to having freedom, but its a trade-off that I believe the best for everybody.
Oh yeah! I have to list at least a source of where I read some of the information from.
My take is that I always default to freedom so I'm all for people owning guns and packing heat everywhere they go and able to get a gun as easy as it is to get a candy bar. But I do recognize that there is negative consequences to having freedom, but its a trade-off that I believe the best for everybody.
If you think criminals steal them from gun owners is the biggest factor, you will be wrong. According to the ATF, the two largest factors on how criminals obtain guns is through Straw Sales (meaning that they just have somebody who can legally buy gun, get them for them.) and through corrupt FFL dealers who don't care who they sale them to.
The fact is that the proliferation of guns in America, the speed in which one can buy a gun (especially from gun shows), and the ease on which one can buy them is how the vast majority of criminals obtain guns.
If you made it difficult for a person to legally purchase guns, you will have in fact greatly limit the access for which criminals can obtain guns, which will in turn reduce the amount of gun violence and criminal activity that use guns and society will be a safer place.
It would help if the NRA hadn't themselves written the laws limiting the ATF's power to monitor gun sales.
I'm not saying this changes anything with the mental illness factor in mass killing violence or will reduce violent assaults. Gangs might just go back to baseball bats, chains and switch blades, but you can reduce criminals use of guns by gun control.
..........
You forgot zip guns. But maybe today's kids can't roll their own?
IP: Logged
10:52 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
I still think there should be a requirement for private gun sales to be processed through a gun dealer so that proper background checks and paperwork can be filed. The problem with that though is it would require enforcement. Meaning things like, checking to make sure a registered owner of a weapon still has the weapon and did not sell it outside the legal channels. I think such an infraction should result in a fine and or jail time along with their ability to purchase and own firearms being revoked. It's all well and good to pass a background check so you can own a gun but you should not be able to legally sell that gun to someone else who hasn't.
IP: Logged
11:29 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Be interesting to know how this convicted ex-felon amassed an arsenal including 18 "assault" weapons (using quotes, because I know that isn't precision terminology) and more than 40,000 rounds of ammo.
Feds discovered the arsenal in December when they busted him as part of a counterfeit merchandise investigation.
Federal agents are trying to determine how a suspected Ohio white supremacist with a felony conviction for manslaughter acquired a cache of 18 assault weapons and other firearms, along with high-capacity magazines and more than 40,000 rounds of ammunition, according to federal law enforcement officials and court documents reviewed by NBC News. . . .
According to the documents, FBI agents who searched Schmidt’s sporting goods store and four trailers behind it, found a stash of weapons that included AR-15 assault rifles, Ruger and Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistols, bulletproof body armor and high-capacity magazines as well as ammunition. . . .
The law enforcement officials said the case appears to illustrate some of the gaps in current background checks for gun purchasers that President Barack Obama has proposed closing as part of his package of executive actions released this week aimed at curbing gun violence. Schmidt was charged with murder and felonious assault in 1989 after killing a Hispanic man and shooting two others with a semi-automatic pistol during a traffic dispute. He later pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison. . . .
Despite a federal law that prohibits convicted felons from buying firearms, Schmidt was still able to acquire his stockpile – though authorities don’t yet know how he acquired them. Federal agents have been trying for weeks to trace the weapons, but officials said they have so far made little progress. This could indicate that Schmidt purchased his weapons from private dealers or gun shows, where background checks are currently not required, one official said. But he also could have obtained them on the black market . . .
1. Could you please tell me how "reviewed the language" is the same as "wrote the laws" ?
2. Do you have any idea why Comedy Central would flash the above image for less than 2 seconds while the comedian was saying: "The NRA DID write the laws!" ?
3. Do you get a lot of your "facts" from comedy shows?
4. Were you even remotely aware that Obama has also actively engaged in the same legislation and rules limiting the BATFE?
...
2000: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives refuses Chicago's request for trace reports as it goes after gun stores; a U.S. appeals court sides with city and the case goes to U.S. Supreme Court.
2002: ATF issues what would be its final report using gun trace data; West Milwaukee's Badger Outdoors is identified as a top seller of crime guns in the nation.
2003: U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) introduces amendment to spending bill that strictly limits gun trace release; passes 31-30; U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), a committee member, opposes the amendment. After the congressional action, the Chicago case is resolved in the ATF's favor.
2004: Tiahrt introduces more restrictions on trace information; Obey supports the change.
2007: Tiahrt revises amendment so police can share data; Obey supports; U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) opposes, some chiefs say they still can't get the information they need.
2008: Candidate Barack Obama vows to repeal amendment.
2009: President Obama inserts similar limits into first budget, deleting one restriction and adding others, including making it illegal to give out data.
Despite a federal law that prohibits convicted felons from buying firearms, Schmidt was still able to acquire his stockpile – though authorities don’t yet know how he acquired them. Federal agents have been trying for weeks to trace the weapons, but officials said they have so far made little progress. This could indicate that Schmidt purchased his weapons from private dealers or gun shows, where background checks are currently not required, one official said. But he also could have obtained them on the black market . . .
....
The "gun show" reference is a bit misleading. Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to do background checks, private parties are not, except in a few States like Oregon which require universal checks. So gun shows are no different than garage sales in that regard in most States. Of course there are dealers who do not bother with becoming licensed or follow any other rules.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 01-18-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:34 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
Originally posted by spark1: The "gun show" reference is a bit misleading. Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to do background checks, private parties are not, except in a few States like Oregon which require universal checks. So gun shows are no different than garage sales in that regard in most States. Of course there are dealers who do not bother with becoming licensed or follow any other rules.
I know I am not from a cool state but, in most states, in seems like I could have a garage sale and sell my MAC10, UZI, or AK47 to anyone who showed up. And because it is a private party sale, I was not obligated to have a background check done on my buyer. Huh, so glad felons are not fans of yard sales in these states.
IP: Logged
02:09 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43231 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
But I do recognize that there is negative consequences to having freedom, but its a trade-off that I believe the best for everybody.
Very true.
"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect. " Eleanor Roosevelt
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. " Ronald Reagan
IP: Logged
10:27 AM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Would Obama and Holder be considered "straw buyers" in the gun sales that took place as part of Fast and Furious?
nope. once again, its the bungling ATF.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
A few questions if you don't mind.
1. Could you please tell me how "reviewed the language" is the same as "wrote the laws" ?
2. Do you have any idea why Comedy Central would flash the above image for less than 2 seconds while the comedian was saying: "The NRA DID write the laws!" ?
3. Do you get a lot of your "facts" from comedy shows?
4. Were you even remotely aware that Obama has also actively engaged in the same legislation and rules limiting the BATFE?
...
2000: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives refuses Chicago's request for trace reports as it goes after gun stores; a U.S. appeals court sides with city and the case goes to U.S. Supreme Court.
2002: ATF issues what would be its final report using gun trace data; West Milwaukee's Badger Outdoors is identified as a top seller of crime guns in the nation.
2003: U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) introduces amendment to spending bill that strictly limits gun trace release; passes 31-30; U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), a committee member, opposes the amendment. After the congressional action, the Chicago case is resolved in the ATF's favor.
2004: Tiahrt introduces more restrictions on trace information; Obey supports the change.
2007: Tiahrt revises amendment so police can share data; Obey supports; U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) opposes, some chiefs say they still can't get the information they need.
2008: Candidate Barack Obama vows to repeal amendment.
2009: President Obama inserts similar limits into first budget, deleting one restriction and adding others, including making it illegal to give out data.
5. Do you have any idea why the comedian failed to mention Mr. Obama's actions?
reviewed the language - lol - anyone who has EVER dealt with this kind of thing can tell you right off the bat - it does NOT mean he said "yup - it is in english". as to the rest of your completely futile attempt at "Look over there!" - how pathetic but, just we we are clear on what you are squirming around with, do you agree or not agree with all the restrictions put on the ATF? being you compared and attempted to link them directly to Obama - I assume that means you disagree with them? as I expect everyone here pretty much can smell how ridiculous they are? selling to visibily drunk is OK?! inventory not required?! transaction records??
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 01-18-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:55 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
The hypocrisy of the left is laughable. Only after the tragedy of Sandy Hook do you want something "fixed". But as usual, the "fixes" you want would have never stopped the criminal who perpetrated the act. But instead you want the government to over-reach and restrict law abiding citizens' rights in the process because you don't agree with that particular RIGHT of the people... Be careful what you wish for. Sooner or later they are going to come for a right you cherish and guess what? There's going to be no one around who can defend it.
Fast and Furious was a scheme planned by Obama and his controllers and implemented by Holder to FORCE gun dealers to sell mass quantities of firearms to Mexican Drug Cartel straw buyers. The goal? Try to get something to happen that would turn public opinion in this country against the 2nd Amendment. Make no bones about it, that was the goal. Anyone denying this is either lying or is a special kind of stupid.
I just want to know where are all your bleeding liberal hearts are for the victims of the Mexican drug cartels that used Fast and Furious guns? FAR MORE innocent children have died from weapons the feds forced US gun retailers to sell to these "straw buyers" than the 20 children slain at Sandy Hook. I guess because Fast and Furious isn't front page news at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; it isn't a concern of yours? Or is it something deeper than that? Does your LOVE for your leader blind you to his acts? Sounds eerily familiar to how many Germans felt about their leader some 70 years ago...
I just want to know where are all your bleeding liberal hearts are for the victims of the Mexican drug cartels that used Fast and Furious guns? FAR MORE innocent children have died from weapons the feds forced US gun retailers to sell to these "straw buyers" than the 20 children slain at Sandy Hook. I guess because Fast and Furious isn't front page news at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; it isn't a concern of yours? Or is it something deeper than that? Does your LOVE for your leader blind you to his acts? Sounds eerily familiar to how many Germans felt about their leader some 70 years ago...
They do not care because fearless leader is involved, plus it is only Mexicans and evidently the left does not see them as people. Last I read it was 300, has the number been going up? don't hear much about this for some reason.
IP: Logged
03:58 PM
2farnorth Member
Posts: 3402 From: Leonard, Tx. USA Registered: Feb 2001
Most people that make a derogatory comment on the "Gun Show Loop Hole" have never bought or tried to buy a gun at a Gun show. Gun shows are primarily a gathering of FFL dealers. Occasionally I see a collector with a table offloading some of his/her collection. There are a few private people walking around with firearms for sale. For me it's easier to buy a gun at a garage sale, estate sale, or flea market than at a gun show.
IP: Logged
04:43 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18735 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
I know I am not from a cool state but, in most states, in seems like I could have a garage sale and sell my MAC10, UZI, or AK47 to anyone who showed up. And because it is a private party sale, I was not obligated to have a background check done on my buyer. Huh, so glad felons are not fans of yard sales in these states.
Private sales in many states are not required for firearm transfers, very true. Prior to the advent and growth of the gun show business, most private sales were between friends or aquaintances. The laws are written with the believe that a responsible citizen will not sell to a person they do not know or have any knowledge of. The law trusts the citizen to be responsible for his actions.
Now, I ask everyone here this question. If you were selling a gun stranger, as a responsible gun owner, would you go with the potential buyer of the weapon to a gun store or law enforcement office and have a check performed, or at least ask him to and judge his reaction to the request?
If you were a seller outside a gun show, selling only one gun and didn't want to spent money for a booth inside, what would prevent you from waliking inside to have the check done?
Nothing says that you have to, but nothing says you can't.
Different scenario.....Same situation, but you've know the guy who wants to buy the gun for ten years. Do you need to run to get the check done?
DO YOU WANT THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE?
Most responsible gun owners know what their options are and when they need to excercise those options.
If you codify universal background checks, it will not cut significantly into the nonchecked private sales. Irresponsible people will just look at the cash, not the customer.
But, Universal Background Check sure does lay a pretty good frame work for a national gun registry and tracking of every weapon in the country.
Interesting, isn't it, how those are two requirements of the UN Small Arms Treaty.........
Originally posted by Wichita: I know some think that Obama and the lefties are just scheming to disarm gun owners
Well, they have stated on more than on occasion they disagree with personal ownership and don't believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't believe for a second its about 'crime prevention'.
Originally posted by olejoedad: But, Universal Background Check sure does lay a pretty good frame work for a national gun registry and tracking of every weapon in the country.
Interesting, isn't it, how those are two requirements of the UN Small Arms Treaty.........
Frame work hell, that IS what it will be, I think they damn well know it.
Frame work hell, that IS what it will be, I think they damn well know it.
Once upon a time the feds were restricted from forming a list. But, they could easily go after any stores sales on a whim, so it was almost the same thing.
I expect them to do this when the new list is made. So even if you bought something 10 years ago from someone with a FFL, and if the place is still in business, your now on the list of 'potential gun owners' ( so that you get on the list even if you sold everything and replaced it with private sales.. ). What happens with this list later, ill leave that up to you to imagine.
Will be a new government agency created too i bet.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-18-2013).]
IP: Logged
05:52 PM
2farnorth Member
Posts: 3402 From: Leonard, Tx. USA Registered: Feb 2001
Once upon a time the feds were restricted from forming a list. But, they could easily go after any stores sales on a whim, so it was almost the same thing.
I expect them to do this when the new list is made. So even if you bought something 10 years ago from someone with a FFL, and if the place is still in business, your now on the list of 'potential gun owners' ( so that you get on the list even if you sold everything and replaced it with private sales.. ). What happens with this list later, ill leave that up to you to imagine.
Will be a new government agency created too i bet.
They have all ready been going to FFLs and copying/scanning the forms even though it's unlawful for them to do so. Who's going to stop them! We know that Holder's "Justice" department won't follow the law when it's inconvenient for them. The FFL would have to complain to a federal attorney....who works for Holder.
IP: Logged
09:26 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18735 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
They have all ready been going to FFLs and copying/scanning the forms even though it's unlawful for them to do so. Who's going to stop them! We know that Holder's "Justice" department won't follow the law when it's inconvenient for them. The FFL would have to complain to a federal attorney....who works for Holder.
It is legal for ATF to scan the information under specific circumstances, but it is illegal for them to remove the records from the FFL place of business, which ATF has tried on several occassions.
The "list" is still illegal, records of the NIBC system inquiries are not retained.
Since its illegal for them to keep a list, they wouldn't keep one, would they?
It is legal for ATF to scan the information under specific circumstances, but it is illegal for them to remove the records from the FFL place of business, which ATF has tried on several occassions.
The "list" is still illegal, records of the NIBC system inquiries are not retained.
Since its illegal for them to keep a list, they wouldn't keep one, would they?
Until its made legal, 'oh we forgot to destroy those records before, sorry about that'
IP: Logged
10:11 AM
2farnorth Member
Posts: 3402 From: Leonard, Tx. USA Registered: Feb 2001
It is legal for ATF to scan the information under specific circumstances, but it is illegal for them to remove the records from the FFL place of business, which ATF has tried on several occassions.
The "list" is still illegal, records of the NIBC system inquiries are not retained.
The ones I'm aware of they scanned ALL records and didn't give a specific reason to the shop owners. They just came in said give the log book and 4473's, then commandeered a desk and went at it.
quote
Since its illegal for them to keep a list, they wouldn't keep one, would they?
We have no way of knowing for sure but I sure don't trust them.
[This message has been edited by 2farnorth (edited 01-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
18 USC § 922(g) & (n) Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May receive minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if offender has three or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault, possession of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony.
Elements
A. Possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition;
B. By a subject who falls within one of the following categories:
Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.);
Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.);
Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.);
Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.);
Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.);
Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or
Dishonorably discharged from the military; AND
C. The firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line at any time.
All elements, A, B and C are needed for conviction.
A felon in Arizona could carry a Ruger pistol (made in Prescott) and use HPR ammunition (made in Payson) and not be in violation of the federal Law. He/she might be in violation of Arizona Law however.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 01-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:38 PM
Jan 20th, 2013
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
1/ steal them. 2/ buy from friends/ other criminals. 3/ buy on the street/ alley.
I can get any kind of a gun i want and ammunition the same day, usually within hours, and not even leave town. All you need is cash and someone to tell you who or where to go.
