Gun dealers to have a license from the ATF, and they already do background checks. I get your point about gun shows, but you seem to imply that sporting good stores don't do background checks.

Nevertheless ,there are a hundred ways to avoid that net. The real problem is in private sales particularly at gun shows.

by those looking to get guns for nefarious reasons. People are still going to get them in robberies, back-alley deals and so on.

Doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them, but it will still happen. People who jump through all the legal hoops can still snap, too.

Some states already require background checks at gun shows. But this is easily circumvented because private sales are still legal.

Say you are prior convicted felon at a gun show and see someone other than a licensed dealer with a gun you want. You can meet that guy in the parking lot or another location and do a person to person transfer with no background check.

100% universal background check requirement on ALL transfers of firearms is the only way to stop that.

did not ban the ownership of said weapons, just the manufacture/importing of said weapons. You could still own, buy, sell, or give away any said weapons, and gun shops were free to sell those weapons, either from new old stock or from trade ins. So maybe you meant an 'institution' rather than 'reinstitution' of the prohibition?

Even Feinstein stated that her law would not be retroactive. Meaning it will grandfather in millions of pre-ban rifles, magazines, receivers, etc that already exist and if there is even a hint that her legislation could make it to the President's desk then there will be a manufacturing surge that will produce enough legal parts to keep in supply.

You are not aware that the results of the last AWB that did not actually ban any semi-automatic rifles, did not impact crime, did not hinder any determined individual from committing mass killings (Columbine happened in 1999 which was within the period of the 1994-2004 AWB), does nothing about the millions of pre-ban (and now considerably more post-ban) magazines, and launched AR and AK patterned rifles into a far higher level of popularity than they had before 1994. Only part of an AR rifle that is legally defined as a firearm is the lower receiver which contains the serial number. Stripped lowers can be purchased for less than $100/each. Once someone owns the lower they can buy parts to assemble a functional rifle at leisure and there is no legislation that would stop them.

Assault weapons are already strictly regulated. And yes civilians do own machine guns. Virginia held a famous machine gun shoot every year. I dont know if they still do. Also semi automatic rifle do have purpose.
None outside the military? Did you watch the tv? Did you see the cops with ar15s ready to take down a active shooter?

High capacity magazines are used that often in shootings? Do you mean arizona? Where it failed and he was taken down because of that? Typical of high cap mags. They havent been a problem yet people still seem to want to ban them.

Background checks and licensing are already done. How well did those waiting periods work out in LA?

is that these weapon give you the ability to shoot holes in people.

You stuck to facts and not falsehoods.

"1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas. "

Actually we do allow citizens to purchase and own both bazookas as well as machine guns, a citizen can even purchase and own a tank and even a fighter jet if they want to. I actually know several such people. It simply requires a more extensive background check and paying of additional taxes to the ATF. A real machine gun can set you back about 20,000.00 though, so not a whole lot of unstable folk or criminals buy them.

"2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter. "

Clearly the only purpose for a magazine that holds over 50 rounds not mass slaughter, as millions of people use just such magazines ever day without ever slaughtering anyone. Be at least a little realistic and logical. Yes they may make it easier for a person to commit mass slaughter but it is also clearly not their "only" purpose.

"3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals. "

Many if not most guns are sold in a licensed and regulated retail gun store, and most sales at gun shows are the same. There are private person to person sales that happen at gun shows as well as outside gun shows, but they are a minority and a very small one. Sporting goods stores must follow the same regulations and perform the same background checks any other licensed gun seller must follow.

I personally doubt any of that would make any difference whatsoever in these senseless killing at schools and such. These people are nuts and they do this for attention, and the media fear mongering and sensationalism is more to blame in my book than gun availability.

They can be bought and sold at gun shows and through personal sales without background checks and I've also seem them for sale on the internet. They may be regulated, but only partially, not strictly. Let's deal in facts.

They have been strictly regulated since 1934.

"Assault weapons", by any of the non-sensible definitions, are readily available for sail by most dealers and many private sellers, as you point out.

He did say "assault weapons are strictly regulated."

To me, nothing is strictly regulated so long as we allow interstate internet sales, unregulated gun show sales, and private sales. I just think we'd be better off if we knew who had which guns and we required periodic licensing. Just like you have to re-up your driver's license periodically, and prove you are not too blind to drive, etc., you should have to re-up your gun license periodically and prove you are not too crazy to have a fire arm.

Despite the mantra that "only criminals will have guns," the evidence shows that most guns used in mass murders were purchased legally. These are, for the most part, not people engaging in late night deal out of car trunks in the barrio. So tightening the rules on legal gun sales would in fact make a difference in mass murders.

the shooter stole them.
interstate sales of any kind are regulated under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing. I know because I know people who have bought guns this way. So any regulation that exists is not "strict regulation," which the claim I am disputing.

If you are saying that the Newtown shooter "stole" his guns, that is disingenuous. Using guns that are in your house and registered and purchased legally is not "stealing" them. That is like saying you steal your mom's car when you take it to the store, or you steal her couch when you sit on it. That argument is really beneath me, and it should be beneath you.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/07/assault-weapon-and-ammo-used-in-aurora-massacre-were-legal/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57500129-504083/new-york-city-gunman-purchased-weapon-legally-in-florida-police-say/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57559329-504083/mass-shootings-in-2012-crimesider-reports-on-this-years-public-shootings/

Moreover, I didn't say that all mass murders happen with legally purchased guns, I said it was the majority of cases. That is what I have been reading, and it appears to be based on the preponderance of the evidence.

... in the buyer's state. The FFL does the background check before releasing the firearm to the buyer. This is the same as purchasing it in a store. Why do you single out interstate Internet sales when they are as closely regulated as face-to-face sales in a licensed business?

If you know of someone who has engaged in an interstate sale without an FFL or background check, then you have knowledge of a felony. If you are not willing to report this felony, then you are part of the problem.

Federal law does not require gun sellers to be licensed. Instead it allows for "private party" sales:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandhomicides/ci_9344423

And guns are sold, apparently, all the time, on Craig's List as well as other internet sites:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217134251AAu73Vu

And Armslist does not require you to be a licensed dealer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217134251AAu73Vu

They are not "as closely regulated as face-to-face sales in a licensed business" because many do not happen by a licensed business. And I dis not "single them out." You did. I also mentioned the well-known gun show loophole. You chose not to address that.

According to what I just read, since unlicensed private party sales are allowed, it is not clear I have knowledge of a felony. Nor could I point any federal authorities to the seller, the website used, the price of sale, the specific location of sale, or any other details law enforcement would need to know to get a warrant to search someone's house for an illegal weapon. So not really much to go on as far as crime fighting. Moreover, your insult and threat to me, which was rude and uncalled for, does not disprove my point that any law that relies on voluntary compliance is not "strictly regulated." It may be regulated, but not "strictly." That is like saying that companies in Bangladesh that engage in voluntary fire safety codes have "strict" safety rules. They don't.

However, I do not choose to subject myself to further accusations that I have violated the law by not reporting something that is of questionable legality, I choose not to further respond to this thread. I also hope you hold yourself up to the same standard, and report every single speeding vehicle, illegal internet download, unauthorized cable connection, underage drinking incident, questionable tax deduction, spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, and any other potentially law breaking behavior your friends have ever potentially engaged in, even if you were not present at the scene, but only heard about it later. Oh you don't call the police on your friends every day? Well, don't try to hold everyone up to that standard then.

not complicated.

Craigslist apparently says what can and can't be sold but doesn't even police that--the sales happen anyway. Clearly, it is not policing whether the seller lives in St. Louis and he buyer lives in East St. Louis if it is not even policing what products are sold. This is no different than the gun show loophole. Is anyone at the door making sure that all the attendees at the Los Angeles gun show live Cali? No. So, in fact, somewhat complicated. These types of sales happen, unregulated, all the time. Easy to stop. End the loopholes. Like the DMV, require even private sales to be registered, and for guns that should include a background check and licensure., every time. Not rocket science.

and a newspaper article that might have been researched or just a reworked press release? Yeah, OK, sure.

I browse Craigslist regularly and have seen such items removed quickly after they are listed. Most don't even last a few hours before being pulled down. Users are very apt to flag such items as violation of the TOS.

Private sales work like this:

1. If the buyer and seller are residence of the same state and the transaction takes place in that state, then it is a state issue and background checks are governed by state law.

2. If any of the above is different and a person or the weapon crosses state lines then it is a federal issue and the transaction must go through a licensed firearms dealer and federal background checks are required.


Any state can require background checks at gun shows - nothing is stopping them. My state has already passed such a law.

That is my whole point. There should be no loopholes. When X drives from VT to NH (or CA to AZ or WHATEVER) to buy a gun at a gun show and then drives it back to his or her state of residence, that is an interstate gun sale which may not be captured in the system due to loopholes. And if that sale takes place in the living room of a "private dealer" you have the private sale loophole, despite any interstate aspect, because the private seller won't have the ability or interest to do a background check and so won't ask you to say that you live in the next state over. And if you find the gun on craig's list or arm's list or any one of these sites that allow or even don't allow, but don't effectively police, classified ads for guns, the site isn't in fact going to be responsible for the fact that the VA guy with the gun drives to DC to make the delivery. And unless somebody knows that it is happening, also knows that whatever sale is about to take place is in fact illegal (and not just exploiting a loophole), knows who to report it to, and can give enough detail (place, time, people involved, etc.) to allow the authorities to locate and stop the sale, it is unlikely such sales can effectively be stopped.

Instead if there were a standard law, just as it applies to cars, that every single sale, no matter by a commercial party or private party or at a show, had to be registered and a background check performed, and every buyer had to be licensed, and to have that license renewed every few years (just like a driver's license) to make sure the person could still handle a gun safely and was not batshit crazy, we'd be a lot better off because people would not have to guess if gun sale A required a background check while gun sale B did not, or if sale C needed to be registered, or if you could cross the state line to get your unregistered gun D.

They all would require a background check, registration, and a license, greatly simplifying matters for buyers, sellers, law enforcement, potential "witnesses" to illegal sales, etc.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Nor does it say there cannot be reasonable restrictions just as there are for every other right in the Constitution.

hence the present legal situation.

as I have advised before, try reading the amendment in question.

I see no indication that it does, so my assumption is that the 10th Amendment applies, reserving the right to regulate intrastate gun issues to the states.

I'm not even sure what you mean, but if you mean to imply that the BATFE, FBI, and the US Marshall Service are unconstitutional, you are most certainly mistaken. Besides, that you are way off topic. I am talking about regulating the sales of guns, which has nothing to do with policing and everything to do with regulating the sale of a dangerous product, which the federal government already does, just not very thoroughly.

if the USSS has a federal warrant for you because they think you have a really profitable printing press, it doesn't go to the locals. If a local cop pulls you over for a broken taillight, the federal warrant will not show up in their system. You might be caught if you pay your fine in "cash".

I suggest you research the commerce clause.

That's an even weaker argument. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, which means that the federal government can pre-empt state law either when it specifically choose to or when it occupies the field by so thoroughly covering a subject. This is why the federal government can do things like set minimum wages, occupational health and safety rules, Social Security, the FDA, etc. That is why the assault weapons ban and other federal laws regarding background checks have NOT been overturned. So, yes, the federal government could occupy the filed if it wanted to. Perhaps you should research the commerce clause.

by dealers engaged in interstate commerce, FFLs.

of my argument--I said it hasn't and it should. You should check out the point of the argument before responding. But you and I had this problem before (see post #49 from Dec. 17). I am no more interested in having a discussion with a person who is only pushing his agenda and not bothering to read and respond to what is on the page than I was on Dec. 17.

sounds rather hypocritical of you. I do believe I did.

the complaint was "more interested in pushing an agenda than in reading and responding to what is actually posted" not just "pushing an agenda." Then you get up in arms about me being "hypocritical" for having my own agenda when that was never the complaint--which you had no interest in engaging anyway. How fantastic it is to have a discussion with people who have no desire to discuss -- just to "make points" and prove something to the other gun rights promoters. Not.

Social Security
OSHA
Medicare
Medicaid
Civil Rights Act
SEC
FTC

All and more are exercises of the commerce clause. Selling and buying guns is commerce. Therefore the federal government can regulate it.

The Supreme Court will soon be deciding some cases that could put federal law front and center into what people are allowed to do with products after they have already purchased them. Textbook companies want to have control over to whom you can sell your textbooks (and other material implicating intellectual property rights) after you have already purchased them and they belong to you and not the publisher! Additionally, Monsanto has a case about what grain elevator operators can do with leftover seeds after they have already purchased them from farmers and have leftovers after their main sales. Lower courts have already sided with the lawyers who argue to limit your rights sell your own products, so you are not too far off with the trinitron example.

In terms of what has already been decided, the most extreme decision is Wickard v. Filburn, which said that a farmer who was growing wheat for his own personal use, and not for the market, could be prohibited from doing so under the Commerce Clause because even his own wheat from his own field for his own use (no crossing of state lines!) could have an impact on interstate commerce if his act was repeated by others. That case has never been overturned. So, given Wickard v. Filburn, I repeat my statement that the Commerce clause is virtually unlimited. Not that I agree with these cases, but just that they exist.

... known as a "straw man," I suggest you do some research on what it actually means. The come back and explain yourself.

Using a straw man is not a "logical fallacy." It is a "rhetorical technique." It is, in fact, usually a true but irrelevant, inapt, tangential comparison/example that is used to falsely discredit someone else's argument by positing that the argument is about something else.

It is a rhetorical fallacy. It is a failure of logic. I wouldn't call it a "rhetorical technique," because that would imply that it has some value. It doesn't.

It also has nothing to do with my username, but you're not the first to make that mistaken (in more ways than one) imputation.

Here is a link to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives FAQs.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf

Figure if you got questions might as well go right to the source of the people in charge of it, and there are multiple answers to your interstate transfer rules. None of which I think will support your argument, but hey, however you choose to read it.

But thanks.

My argument that Straw Man used a Straw Man argument? I don't really need to look anything up about that. You should probably check that you responded to the comment you are referring to. It will make the conversations make more sense.

Welcome to DU.

to committing a federal offense on the Internet. Failure to report such a crime makes you an accessory, and up for about 10 years in Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison and a $100,000 for each offense.

"But I shouldn't have to report it! The system is too lax!"

Then you are a lazy fuck who has blood on their hands. Get off your high horse of blaming guns when its the people -- including YOU -- who are the problem. Cops rely on the public to call 911 to prevent and prosecute murder. Is murder not highly regulated?

BTW, killing someone and then taking their property is stealing. It's like killing your mother and then taking her car, not borrowing it to go pick up some milk and eggs for her.

so that you can deny that most guns used in mass murders were legally obtained.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map


In this case, each gun was legally purchased and licensed. You can make up a story about how you think the guns were "stolen," but that is all that it is, a story. He lived with his mom, and you have no idea what they shared, what he had permission to access, what she gave him, etc. A theft charge on the guns would never stick, and has no basis in fact, only in the mind of someone who wants to keep weapons of mass destruction widely available.

And as I already posted in a different reply, you had better stop threatening me. I have no idea if the knowledge that I have of what a friend said he bought is a felony -- I looked up the law, and it's not clear to me. I only have hearsay knowledge of the event, no name, price, or location of the seller or the deal, nothing that would be considered evidence in a court of law. I love your bullshit response--as if you have any idea if my friend has committed a felony much less me. YOU are the problem. You will do anything to defend guns and those who use them apparently and waste your time trying to intimidate and threaten those who dare to challenge your ideas. If I am such a felon, maybe you should report me to the police. If you're lucky, I'll get arrested and pounded in the as, whatever the fuck that means.

Welcome to ignore!

Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge. Just saying.

you can't claim you are not guilty of murder by saying "I didn't know murder was against the law." It applies when you are the perpetrator. It does NOT refer to the fact that you are required to report some behavior that you heard about (which is probably inadmissible hearsay anyway) that may or may not be illegal. That doesn't meet the standard of knowledge of a crime. Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge. You might also want to ask any cop. lawyer, or judge how many people are ever even prosecuted (much less convicted) "hearing that somebody might have done something that constituted a crime" but not reporting it. Probably none. Just saying.

If so you need to report them. If you are embellishing 2nd hand information you heard as gossip to prove your point about illegal sales, then no you don't need to report it. But at least admit you were basically lying about knowing someone firsthand who has illegally purchased a firearm and then stating that as a fact to further your argument.

You and your buddies claim it is a felony. I don't know that it is. You wish it was because then you could further YOUR argument. I think it is shit that happens every day a million times because our gun laws suck and are riddled with loopholes.

Are those that fire more than one bullet with each pull lf the trigger. Those are tightly regulated.

Assault rifles are military rifles.

Civilian guns made to look like real assault rifles are what many talk about. Those you can, in some states, purchase them without a background check and at gun shows.

Im no expert on interstate federal law, but ive looked into buying an online gun. I was required to get it sent from the seller to a federally licensed gun dealer where a back ground check could be done.

Thats my take on it.

Not if he delivers it to you or you go get it from him. And only if he chooses to follow the law. Some private sellers don't.

And the Assault Rifle/Assault Weapons dichotomy has been thoroughly debated above. I have no interest in revisiting that dead horse except to say you can kill plenty of people, and apparently this cretin in CT did, with an "assault weapon" that required a new pull of the trigger for every bullet, but no reloading of bullets because of a high capacity clip. He killed plenty of people very quickly without it being a fully automatic weapon. One no longer needs such a weapon to inflict massive and rapid death on massive numbers of people.

30 -50 bullet clips or magazines are NOT needed for hunting. Hunters need to get the animal on their first shot, otherwise they scare the game away. They are lucky if they get a second shot in and take the animal down then, but nobody is eating a deer riddled with bullets from a 50 bullet clip. Nobody. There is no point to such high capacity clips or magazines except to hunt people. And frankly, I don't want my neighbors hunting people. His right to hunt people stops where my right to live in a free society instead of a society of fortresses begins. So I think if we make those high capacity clips illegal to sell or buy, we have solved part of the problem. No one is going after game hunters and their guns, but those of us who live in cities have less chance of dying in a pointless, bloody massacre that no one has a "right" to impose on us anyway.

That's my take on it.

And apparently enjoy it:

"except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."

Ergo, X goes to Y's living room and buys a gun. And who checks exactly on X's residence? The laws of X's state?

What about: "When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State."

Again, who is checking this shit? How long do you have to be in the state to be a resident? What is the requirement of due diligence and how do I know the dealer didn't meet it? Again, you make assumptions about knowing the elements of the crime, particularly what the seller "knew or had reasonable cause to believe."

Your assumptions are pretty flooring... but you know everything, right?

"When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State."

Another straw man.

That was the discussion. Your reference is irrelevant.

What is the basis for residence? For due diligence? What are the requirements if no record keeping is required? How do I know if what went on during the sale meets the requirements of the law?

Where did the sale take place, Ms Orwell? I don't know.
What is the exact date and time the sale took place, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
Do you know how much money changed hands, Ms. Orwell? No.
Do you know the name and address of the seller, Ms. Orwell? No.
Did you actually see or hear the transaction occur, Ms. orwell? No.
What make and model was purchased, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
Did the seller know the buyer wasn't licensed, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
So you can't in fact tell us that a crime has been committed, can you, Ms. Orwell? No. I'm only trying to report it because some $#%% on DU is threatening and bullying me that I have committed a crime by not reporting all the stuff I don't know to you.

Oh, well, carry on, Ms. Orwell. And tell the bullies that people should report crimes to us if they have actual evidence, but otherwise, you are actually impeding our work...

YOU keep moving the goalposts.

I corrected your misinformation regarding the legality of interstate sales. You were wrong. I don't really care whether you acknowledge that or not, but I hope that anyone who might be contemplating such a transaction understands it.

For the record, I never threatened you in any way, and as for "bullying," you were the one who revived this thread after two weeks of dormancy.

YOU have to have the last word. Well keep trying. You corrected nothing as I was not wrong. The shit happens every day. I have nothing to report. And you can continue to bully as if I am some kind of a felon. I am not. And I don't go chasing other DUers through months-old threads to tell them that they are.

Nobody had touched this thread since Jan. 22nd until you came along and started responding to old posts.

You certainly were wrong on several points of law. I believe is important to correct such misinformation whenever possible. You wouldn't want someone to inadvertantly break the law based on information you provided, would you?

You were the one who did the chasing. I didn't even remember that this thread existed until you responded to my old post.

And couldn't take it when I responded. Apparently still can't. And still pretending that the Us has strong gun laws.

You mean that I'm supposed to stop responding when you tell me to? I didn't see that in the TOS.

I'm not "pretending" anything. We were having a factual discussion of points of law.

you bully someone by saying they have committed a felony and you hope they'll be scared and run away. Not. Gonna. Happen.

But keep telling yourself whatever you like.

backs of cars. It is NOT well-regulated and it should be just like cars, just like I said, where you can't drive around an unregistered care just because you bought it at a gun show or in a living room. All the discussion of my sensibilities in the world won't take away the fact that you tried to bully me into thinking I have done something wrong because I've met people that claim to have bought unregistered guns in private sales.

Gee, let's have the whole argument again and you can still pretend that guns are well regulated even though there are about a million loopholes and I can keep saying, no,unlicensed guns are sold in living rooms every day.

Hypocrisy? Maybe you should look that one up.

... that we were discussing.

You came in quite late in the conversation--quite late--weeks later in fact. And apparently didn't do your homework on what the conversation was even about. Hypocrites tell people to do one thing and then do another. I don't tell you to make pointless police reports and don't do it myself. That's called integrity. Doing as you say. I also advocate for stronger gun laws. For all. It's not hypocritical not to be bullied by you into making pointless phone calls reporting unprosecutable "crimes" under the current law. Again, look up the definition of hypocrite. Arguing for stronger gun laws has nothing to do with one's approach to what you wrongly surmise is prosecutable knowledge under the current inadequate gun laws.

Your information was wrong. I corrected it. You either knew these sales were illegal or you didn't. If you didn't, then I hope you do now. If you did, then you ignored a felony. You could have done something, anything, from dropping a dime yourself to simply telling the person that what they were doing was illegal. You didn't. You want to indict the system, but if you knew and did nothing, then you are complicit, if not legally, then at least morally.

You continue to assume it is. Quit making assumptions. Read the whole conversation. Or maybe you can't be bothered because you just want to keep repeating that you are right. Well guess what? I'll just keep repeating that you are wrong.

And I am complicit in nothing. No one I know has shot anyone. You are complicit in trying to maintain the system that allows millions of unregistered and untraceable firearms to be sold every single day. I am arguing to change that system. Your only response is that you think (wrongly) I have knowledge of someone using a loophole in the system. That is not constructive and doesn't fix the system. Another STRAW MAN.

I have read the thread. I stand by what I said. Interstate sales without an FFL and a background check are illegal. You did not describe someone using a loophole; you described someone breaking the law. The distinction is crucial.