 |
Each state has a different way of dealing with it. But I can provide a link to the base of which the laws come from. That would be the Brady Bill and the Gun Control Act of 1968.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ref
(Background checks)
Background Check
(gun control act of 1968)
FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Here are 2 more links to help uderstand the issue we are talking about.
Ref:
Felony Gun Laws - FelonyGuide
Federal Gun Laws for Convicted Felons | eHow.com
Hello again, dad:
The above from your link on eHow. That ISN'T the law. It's somebody's VIEWPOINT of the law. I'll say it again. Federal law precludes POSSESSION of a firearm. I don't know what YOUR link is saying. From a legal perspective, what does "having contact" mean? It means ANYTHING somebody wants it to mean, and that's how your link came up with HIS conclusion..Quote:
Federal gun laws prohibit felons from having any contact with firearms and ammunition.
Secondarily, the law the government is considering won't effect state laws, so how state laws are worded is not relevant. It's the FEDERAL proscription that's relevant.
Nonetheless, all this is subterfuge. I suspect it's meant to show how IMPORTANT it is to go after felons who ATTEMPTED to buy a gun, but were DENIED - rather than preventing MORE felons from being able to buy guns in the first place. I just can't grasp the logic behind that...
Excon
The ehow link was provided to understand the process of buying a gun. It provides understanding as to what is currently going on in many states in a nutshell. The correct process varies by state. In some there is a waiting period and others you can have one in minutes. Again it's the states law that is predominent to the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think what the portion of the argument curently being thown out there is that laws are already on the books. I don't think the analysis is always valid as a denial doesn't mean a felon attempted to buy a gun because there are any number of reasons that a denial can occur.
Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation. But I am against universal registration. The difference being one has a permanent record with it (universal registration) and the other does not. (background check)
Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest. Having the information at hand allows us to make informed decisions which is where we all need to be on the subject.
Hello again, dad:
So do I. That's why you won't mind a minor correction that has BROAD implications..Quote:
Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation.
Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest.
Today, under present law, the application that gun buyers fill out is NOT destroyed. The gun shop keeps it, and that's NOT registration. Under a universal background check, the gun shop would keep THAT piece of paper too, and that won't be registration either.
I'm NOT for banning private sales, or loans of guns to friends, or leaving town (that's for tom)... I don't know HOW any of that can be enforced anyway. I'm for closing the GUN SHOW loophole. From what I've seen, as many guns change hands through PRIVATE sellers at gun shows, as those that do from the dealers..
Since licensed gun dealers are ALREADY equipped to do background checks, we can require that a private sale go THROUGH a dealer. That would PREVENT people like ME from going to gun shows and buying ANY gun we want.
Personally, I'd LIKE that. I don't know why you don't. There are some pretty mean felons out there and I'd rather they not have guns..
Now, there's the view expressed by the NRA that criminals won't go through the background check... Well, if he'd FAIL, he's RIGHT. And, that's the POINT.
What La Pierre is suggesting is that somehow every one of us is a member of the exconvict club, so we AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy guns illegally. So, the background check is only for SUCKERS...
Well, I'm here to tell you, that's as stupid as I made it out to be...
Excon
Here is the problem in what your stating. For one thing there is no provision that I have seen for the destruction of the background check under the universal theme. So to me that is federal level gun registation. Yes I am aware that FFL holders keep the paperwork not the government. Im not against instant checks even for private sales. It protects all sides including the buyer. In many cases guns traded or sold at guns shows can be stolen so without any type of check it is buyer beware.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To me it is not the governments business what I have in my home beyond those already regulated by a class 3 compliance. Other then that the government doesn't have a need to know nor a reason to keep a list.
By keeping it at the FFL level they don't "share" the information. The FFL holder does NOT have the ability to do an approved back ground check. They only handle the paperwork and the actual check is done by a third party (big brother).
It won't stop straw purchses but you could prosecute for the crime if someone is doing so. The straw purchase is knowingly selling to someone. Not just a private sale. Also I have been to many gun shows and can assure you from the ones I went to that most of the sales are taking place inside and through FFL holders.
Yes, Schumer's plan is a defacto gun registration, and as I've said before makes most gun transfers a felony if not done through an FFL holder. Leave your house and guns with your roomie for 8 days without a transfer? Felony.
All the more reason why there should be an armory
MSNBC, a real news organization, has gotten to the bottom of the push back against Bloomberg's $12 million attempt to mold America in his nannyish image - antisemitism.
To be honest I didn't even know he was Jewish. Is it really that hard to believe we just think the guy that believes he "should infringe on your freedom" once in a while should butt out?Quote:
According to MSNBC contributors Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton, opposition to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control push is partly the result of anti-Semitism. “Let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed towards Bloomberg,” Barnicle argued on Morning Joe, “It’s out there.” “No doubt about that,” Sharpton responded.
“If he was not a big-city Jewish man and was from another ethnic group, in some parts, I think it would be different,” Sharpton continued.
"Bloomberg"? Really? :)Quote:
I didn't even know he was Jewish
Dude, there aren't just a lot of "bergs" where I live. We don't think about it here, everyone is Smith, Jones or Rodriquez.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This came from Al Sharpton who had all kinds of nice things to say about NY Jews .
"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." (Al Sharpton)
Confusing isn't it?
Back in the Crown Heights days ,Sharpton referred to rich Jews as 'diamond merchants' .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ond%20merchant
Or Patel...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or Leblanc or Tremblay?
No, but Nguyen or Phongvonsa sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't usually like Jim Carrey but we should thank him for his contribution to the debate
The video is embedded in this article
Jim Carrey airs his anti-gun views in comedy song 'Cold Dead Hand' | News.com.au
I think I prefer this video instead ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I Like Guns - Steve Lee - YouTube
I think it makes a point
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM. |