Search found 5 matches

by ScottDLS
Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:07 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 5638

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:45 pm
ScottDLS wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:27 pm
I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.
Well I don’t have a problem with that idea either. My point is simply that, if we’re going to be saddled with it, then everyone who is supposed to report into it should be held to the same level of accountability as those of us who have to submit to it to buy a gun from an FFL. And if they are not to be held accountable to the system, then neither should we.
:iagree:
by ScottDLS
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:59 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 5638

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

philip964 wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:23 pm
I’m going to get flamed but I’m ready for it.

What if their was a law requiring private gun sellers to get three notarized letters from the buyer stating that they have known the person for five years, the person is of sound mind, the person to their knowledge has never been convicted of a crime, does not abuse drugs, and they would recommend that person for a gun purchase.

The gun seller would be required to keep the letters for five years.

Failure to get the letters or to keep them would subject the seller to civil liability should the person commit a crime with the gun sold to them.

Buyers would be responsible to immediately report a gun theft made through a private sale.

What if it was for buyers only under 26 years of age?

I would rather us write the new law than politicians.
To be fair to you for putting a proposal out there, I want to say that I appreciate you starting this thread. As you no doubt read in my and others previous posts, we don't like the idea. But at least you got us to articulate why and describe our opposition. So thank you for starting the thread and giving people the opportunity to (passionately) make our case. :tiphat:
by ScottDLS
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:39 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 5638

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

philip964 wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:19 pm
I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

My understanding it’s illegal to shout fire in a theatre. A judge recently ruled pointing your finger at some one like a gun is disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct and a lot of people here said “hades yeah” it is.

So even our cherished first amendment has limitations.

Arms, does that include suitcase thermonuclear weapons?

Cruise missiles with conventional warheads?

Well maybe if your 18.

Felony murderers after they are released from prison on parole?

I’d rather us pick our poison.

Legal concealed carry was sold to the Texas legislature because it would allow people to defend themselves, if another Luby’s happened.

We let them down, there were three mass shootings and there were no LTC’s to stop it. ( yes the church shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun ) The fourth in Texas was a gun free zone, not our fault.

Walmart has always been very good to us and we weren’t there to stop it.

They have reacted. Moderately. They still allow us to conceal carry.

Our politicians will be under pressure when they resume, we need to help them, guide them.

Allowing us access, to voluntarily search the their database for a private gun sale, does not infringe.

I think it’s a great idea.

I’m just still not sure how to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Most now seem to have a pattern of buying a new semi automatic rifle and going and committing mass murder. Through the news they have learned exactly which gun to buy to kill the most.

Anyone notice the new article about Las Vegas, the guy left a note in the room, where he calculated the bullet drop to the concert across the street.
It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is a fire, or if you're exhorting the actor on the screen to shoot the bad guy. :biggrinjester:

It's also not Constitutional to prohibit a newspaper from printing truthful material because it was illegally obtained or because it might be harmful (see prior restraint and Pentagon Papers).

Murder is illegal. Therefore Texas legislators must be wheedled into allowing me to carry a gun for my own defense, only after jumping through hoops. It's illegal to shoot DPS Troopers with an AR-15, therefore I must not be allowed to buy an AR-15 from my neighbor without permission from the state and a record of the transaction. A guy walked into WalMart with an AK-47 pattern semi and shot a bunch of people, therefore I shouldn't be allowed to walk in with a partially visible handgun on my belt, or buy 7.62x39 or 9mm. Wal Mart and Kroger can make whatever policy they like and in Texas they can even use the State to enforce it if they post the right signs, unless you're a cop or VERP, or security guard, or retired cop, etc. etc. And I can do less business with them than I would otherwise. A was always partial to Target though they are bigger lefties than Wally World.
by ScottDLS
Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:27 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 5638

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.
by ScottDLS
Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:17 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction
Replies: 81
Views: 5638

Re: Would you support this gun private purchase restriction

- What problem are we trying to solve?
- Are there large numbers of prohibited persons obtaining guns in private sales?
- Is one enough to justify a new law?
- Is there an indication that absent the private sale "loophole" the prohibited possessor wouldn't have gotten a gun a different way?
- Why is the solution to make it harder for law abiding, non-prohibited possessors to buy and sell guns?
- What is the justification, if any, for involving the federal government in a state matter (i.e. intrastate transfer of private property between individuals)? The 1968 Gun Control Act establishing FFL's and certain federal control of firearms transactions was specifically predicated on controlling interstate commerce in firearms (you know the magic Constitutional talisman that federalizes everything :roll: ). States (including Texas) are free to impose additional regulation in transactions within their borders if they see fit. I still don't see that it would help anything, because you start to get into the minutiae of how closing the private sale loophole would work. It wouldn't.
- How is the private seller to check that the person they are selling to or transferring to is prohibited or not?
- Give them access to Federal NICS? Really? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spend all day looking people up for thrills? What if they get a delay?
- Follow the same process that FFL's do? Wait 3 days?
- Do you (privately) have the buyer fill out a 4473? Do you have to keep it? Send it to the State? The Feds? OK force everyone through an FFL? All right, what about 18-20 year olds...no more handguns for them? Exemptions for military and police 20 year olds?
- What constitutes a sale/transfer? When my dad loans me his Glock to go the range. When grandpa passes and wills me his WWII 1911? Does the executor run to an FFL?
- If someone is willing to murder somebody, how is closing the private sale "loophole" going to help? We didn't have NICS until 1998. Before then an FFL did what current private sellers are obligated to do. They didn't sell the gun to someone they knew or had reason to know was prohibited. We hear lots of great things about how NICS blocks a zillion sales, but the violent gun crime stats were falling before NICS. My proposition was that the reason was because sentencing on both a state and federal level for crime got a lot stricter.
- Another point about NICS. Everyone says why aren't we prosecuting NICS denials? Well...because NICS database stinks! My proposition is that a significant percentage of denials are false positives.
- A federal appeals court (4th circuit I think) has ruled that prosecuting a prohibited possessor for perjury on a 4473 requires proof that the person knew or should have known that he was prohibited. And with the cruddy NICS database, the vague definitions of prohibited possessors (misdemeanor DV, "adjudicated mentally defective", even the definition of "felony" in 50+ jurisdictions, the definition of "restraining order", and so on and so on).
- So now we want to engage this process, not just for regulated FFL's but for every time your brother in law loans you his lever action to go varmint hunting? -
- Also, what about the ammo "loophole". California implemented background checks for ammo.

So no we don't need to DO SOMETHING1 Well, maybe one thing, speed up the application of the death penalty to convicted capital criminals...but that's help up by the SCOTUS "loophole". No executing 17 year olds, no executing violent rapists, no executing insane people (aren't all murderers arguably insane?).

No pre-crime laws!
No unconstitutional federal interference in intrastate commerce!
No cosmetic feature bans!
No magazine size limits!

If a politician, supposedly "on our side" like the Lt. Governor or Governor or President, is going to propose additional restrictions, then they owe it to us to explain how it would work, how it would help, and how it would be Constitutional. The other side doesn't care a bit about this and will simply keep pursuing their goal of a total gun ban and confiscation and screeching and flinging poo like the monkeys they are.

Return to “Would you support this gun private purchase restriction”