Senate 'Gun Control' Compromise Likely this week - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Senate 'Gun Control' Compromise Likely this week

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2013, 09:26 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,484
Liked 640 Times on 386 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

All this is a back door to registration. UBCs do nothing to stop crime. What other piece of property do you think you should get government permission to sell?

IMO, a non FFL BC hotline would be acceptable. No fees, no 4473, no paperwork, no records kept of BC disposition. You wouldn't be required to call the hotline, but most reasonable people would if they didn't know the buyer. You call a 1-800 number and give name, DOB, DL number. Takes a few minutes and all you get as a response is yes or no. Not required by law, but so simple you'd be crazy not to when selling to a stranger.

The folks behind this kind of BS legislation don't care about stopping crime. They only care about control of LACs. If it smells like sh1t, it usually is. This idea of anything remotely similar to UBCs is total sh1t.

__________________
1911love is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 10:12 PM   #32
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5733 Times on 3359 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM View Post
...I think the nics system should be open to use for everyone not just ffl's. Just call up say if its a private sale or not give a name social dl whatever they tell you yes/no make your sale or say bye. No fee needed no paperwork needed. Just a yes no if this person is prohibited or not
I think this is the only answer that would be acceptable to MOST people on both sides of the issue. If somebody is later found to be a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and it is determined that you sold it to them, you better have a validation number or something from that call to the NICS system.

Maybe we could have little ATM-type machines at all the gunshows wired into the NICS system and available for all parties to use, maybe even with a little printed voucher that says "DL# whatever passes and can buy". You want to buy a gun at the gunshow, "you better check yourself" when you come in. I could live with that.

Or maybe we could start tattooing all "prohibited persons" with a little mark behind their ear, maybe a little beastie to indicated they have been bad. No mark of the little beastie, OK to buy; mark of the beastie, no sale.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 10:18 PM   #33
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6573 Times on 3638 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911love View Post
All this is a back door to registration. UBCs do nothing to stop crime. What other piece of property do you think you should get government permission to sell?

IMO, a non FFL BC hotline would be acceptable. No fees, no 4473, no paperwork, no records kept of BC disposition. You wouldn't be required to call the hotline, but most reasonable people would if they didn't know the buyer. You call a 1-800 number and give name, DOB, DL number. Takes a few minutes and all you get as a response is yes or no. Not required by law, but so simple you'd be crazy not to when selling to a stranger.

The folks behind this kind of BS legislation don't care about stopping crime. They only care about control of LACs. If it smells like sh1t, it usually is. This idea of anything remotely similar to UBCs is total sh1t.
I highly approve of this idea.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 10:47 PM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,817
Liked 762 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 461

Default

The majority of gun crime is committed by people with multiple felony priors. How do these laws fix that?

__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 10:50 PM   #35
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5733 Times on 3359 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpyle View Post
The majority of gun crime is committed by people with multiple felony priors. How do these laws fix that?
Oh, this isn't for that; this is just to satisfy D.C. To fix that, you would have to let multiple felony types finish their sentences on the inside or at least track them on the outside until their sentence is really done.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:31 PM   #36
Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FullautoUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Marxachusetts
Posts: 2,627
Liked 625 Times on 476 Posts
Likes Given: 1111

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
You are an idiot if you think they all look like this guy. Go back to watching Gangland on the Discovery channel Mr. gang expert.

The more organized gangs are businessmen. They dont even associate with tatted up soldier thugs.
Walk around Worcester MA at night and tell me how many businessmen gang members you see. Where do you live that makes you think gang members are businessmen like, because I live in a town right next to Worcester, it is a true gang run hell hole, and the picture of that tattooed guy is what they all look like
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE

[COLOR="Blue"]See my pellet guns here: http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/groups/ftf%20pellet%20gunners/air%20gun%20picture%20thread-149/

RESIDENT AIR GUN GUY
FullautoUSA is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:32 PM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 615
Liked 325 Times on 194 Posts
Likes Given: 517

Default

I'm completely for fighting ALL restrictions on our second amendment rights. Concede NOTHING. But as the past has taught us sometimes we are going to lose the initial round. We can, and have, sucessfully fight it in the court system. But even if this background check proposal is passed it will at least be a watered down version of the original. Compared to what we were facing in December we are in good shape. But do I like it? NO!

__________________
Warrior1256 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:33 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,817
Liked 762 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 461

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello

Oh, this isn't for that; this is just to satisfy D.C. To fix that, you would have to let multiple felony types finish their sentences on the inside or at least track them on the outside until their sentence is really done.
So silly of me to think that anti-crime laws would actually reduce crime.
__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:35 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,817
Liked 762 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 461

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior1256
I'm completely for fighting ALL restrictions on our second amendment rights. Concede NOTHING. But as the past has taught us sometimes we are going to lose the initial round. We can, and have, sucessfully fight it in the court system. But even if this background check proposal is passed it will at least be a watered down version of the original. Compared to what we were facing in December we are in good shape. But do I like it? NO!
Problem is that once background checks are universal there will be so many strings attached that no one will pass.
__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:41 AM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arley, AL in "The Free State of Winston"
Posts: 552
Liked 257 Times on 150 Posts
Likes Given: 185

Default

One thing I don't understand is they keep saying all it is, is requiring back ground checks at gun shows and online. If I went right now and bought a gun online I wouldn't be able to get it without a background check because it has to be shipped to an ffl. If I went to a gun show and purchased from a vendor I would have to do a background check. So what in Sam hell is this new law they keep talking about doing if its already a law. I just don't understand it or I'm totally missing something somewhere.

__________________
Devin556 is offline  
orangello Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Alternative Compromise to Gun Control starving030 Legal and Activism 41 03-26-2013 01:54 PM
Gun Control Hits Snag in Senate Stillersfan Legal and Activism 26 03-26-2013 03:52 AM
Today's senate committee hearing on gun control legislation StainlessSteel215 Legal and Activism 35 03-07-2013 09:21 PM