LOL, has anyone actually read the "universal background check" legislation that has been proposed??

[virginia mountainman]

It is legislation like this law, that utter kills any hope of gun reform. It is so far out of touch to be laugable, and has no hope of passage once it gets "exposed" to the public.

Full text here: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf

And interesting read on some of what is wrong with the bill and its labyrinth of legal pitfalls...

If you go on vacation and have a house sitter feed pets, livestock and look over your house, and you stay gone for more than 7 days, you and YOUR HOUSE SITTER just committed a federal crime...

Go target shooting on some property of a friend? Don't hand him your gun, or you both can go to prison... O and you better not ride in the same car to the property... Go hunting in the mountains, flip your canoe in the river, loose a gun? You have 24 hrs to report it lost to the Police AND the Attorney General of the United States.... Hope you don't flip it on a Friday night..Or you could be spending the NEXT 5 years in "Club Fed"...

And this just scratches the surface of this stupid law...

Laws like this doom gun control from the start. Because one side is not serious.

[rdharma]

1. Are you a lawyer, VA mountainman?

I thought not!

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Do you find anything faulty with his assessment of the proposed law?

Do tell.

[rdharma]

3. What do YOU find wrong in the law?

Please in detail! And be able to back up with facts!

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. I don't know- I'm not a lawyer. Are you?

[Eleanors38]

35. LOL! Da gun-controller's hermetically-sealed logic.

[Jenoch]

5. I did not read the proposed legislation.

Did you discover inaccuracies with the analysis done by virginia mountainman?

(Did you get my message?)

[Eleanors38]

34. To evaluate laws, ALL citizens must be lawyers. Another provision of the law.

[Clames]

6. Yup, a very stupid and poorly written law.

Has absolutely no mechanism built in to it to ensure that it could be fairly enforced either. The section the defines "transfer" is comically vague and would not survive challenge in court.

[tularetom]

7. Only someone who is vehemently opposed to any form of gun control could like that asinine bill

From a quick glance, it's fucking near unenforceable.

[JDPriestly]

10. What precise wording would you propose for background checks?

I think the law restricts very little legitimate activity.

Have you really read the law?

[gejohnston]

8. I'm guessing it is written by the same

Brady Center and MAIG lobbyists that wrote the NY and CO laws.

[JDPriestly]

9. You do have to report a loss, but I think you are misreading some of the

other provisions. Why don't you speak to a lawyer about this?

I don't think you understand what you are reading.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Ok..

The inability to let someone else use YOUR firearm on their (or even yours, if it is away from your home) private property.. Also understand, that it is long settled law, considers things to be in your possession that are simply in a room (or a car) with you... Our insane drug laws has made this so.

(C) a temporary transfer of possession that
19 occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unli-
20 censed transferee, if —
21 ‘‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession
22 occurs in the home or curtilage of the unli-
23 censed transferor;
‘‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that
2 home or curtilage during the temporary trans-
3 fer; and
4 ‘‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less
5 than 7 days; and
6 ‘‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession with-
7 out transfer of title made in connection with lawful
8 hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer oc-
9 curs—
10 ‘‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on
11 premises owned or occupied by a duly incor-
12 porated organization organized for conservation
13 purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms
14 and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the
15 premises of the shooting range;
16 ‘‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competi-
17 tion under the auspices of or approved by a
18 State agency or nonprofit organization and the
19 firearm is, at all times, kept within the prem-
20 ises of the shooting competition; and
21 ‘‘(iii) while hunting or trapping, if—
22 ‘‘(I) the activity is legal in all places
23 where the unlicensed transferee possesses
24 the firearm;
‘‘(II) the temporary transfer of pos-
2 session occurs during the designated hunt-
3 ing season; and
4 ‘‘(III) the unlicensed transferee holds
5 any required license or permit.
6 ‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘trans-
7 fer’—
8 ‘‘(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from
9 pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
10 ‘‘(B) shall not include temporary possession of
11 the firearm for purposes of examination or evalua-
12 tion by a prospective transferee while in the presence
13 of the prospective transferee.

Again, consider house guests, when your out of town, the law could clearly entrap them, as it does people everyday for "illegal drugs".

Special note, notice the bit about having the "permit" for hunting, I wonder what happens if someone forgets to get a 2 dollar damage stamp, or forgets their license?? Did a federal FELONY just take place?

..the loss of a firearm, reporting..

IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United
13 States Code, is amended by adding at the end—
14 ‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully
15 possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or
16 transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, inter-
17 state or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or
18 loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person dis-
19 covers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to
20 the appropriate local authorities.’’.

[JDPriestly]

47. I utterly agree with the proposed law on this:

You should be unable
"to let someone else use YOUR firearm on their (or even yours, if it is away from your home) private property."

The whole point of the law is to prevent transfer of possession or ownership of a firearm to take place without the filing of a notice of that the transfer is taking place. That's the only way you can insure that the person to whom possession or ownership of the firearm has passed a background check.

Also, hunting licenses are required. People have to get them. They usually aren't that expensive or that much trouble to get.

We have to renew our car licenses. Professionals have to renew their licenses in order to work. There is nothing complicated about that. You can probably do it on the internet in non-business hours. It's just lazy and irresponsible not to renew a hunting license.

I especially like the requirement that you must report the theft of a firearm right away. That will help alert police to the thefts. A lot of guns used in crimes are stolen.

The law looks very sensible and reasonable to me.

[Bay Boy]

53. Ok, you've alerted the police...

...what happens next?
"I especially like the requirement that you must report the theft of a firearm right away. That will help alert police to the thefts. A lot of guns used in crimes are stolen"

[JDPriestly]

82. The police watch for that firearm. If they stop someone who has it

they can arrest the person for either stealing it or receiving stolen goods.

The point of the law is to make the person who owns a gun responsible for what happens to the gun.

If you have a gun and you lend it to someone who uses it to massacre kids in a school, you will have a federal offense against you.

That is the point, and I think it is an appropriate means of preventing people who should not have guns from getting them and shooting kids.

I understand this law, and I think it will help make gun owners more responsible.

[gejohnston]

88. lending isn't the problem

the problem is theft, from gun owners and police. BTW, possessing a stolen gun is a federal crime. Also, gun stores and banks have one thing in common, ripping one off is a federal crime.

[JDPriestly]

94. And this new law puts some of the responsibility for knowing

where the guns are and whether they have been stolen and then reporting the theft on the gun-owners.

I think that is a great idea.

It helps law enforcement find those who steal the guns as well as those who buy them as contraband and use them.

[Bay Boy]

93. OK...

1.The police watch for that firearm. If they stop someone who has it
they can arrest the person for either stealing it or receiving stolen goods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the police are smart enough to question a person with a bag o'guns as to whether they
are stolen or not

2.The point of the law is to make the person who owns a gun responsible for what happens to the gun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed a gun owner should take responsibility, I think we disagree about the level of responsibility. Should
I be guilty of murder if someone kills with a gun he stole from me?

3.If you have a gun and you lend it to someone who uses it to massacre kids in a school, you will have a federal offense against you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that something new or something proposed? If something like that were to happen to me I would feel anquish beyond belief, but can
any crime someone might commit be predicted?

[JDPriestly]

95. OK.

1.The police watch for that firearm. If they stop someone who has it
they can arrest the person for either stealing it or receiving stolen goods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** If the gunowner timely reports to the police that gun was stolen, the police may not only be able to trace the gun back to the owner, but may be able to figure out who stole the gun and may be able to add a charge that has a witness to support it to the list of charges against the person who stole or used the gun or both stole and used the gun.***

I think the police are smart enough to question a person with a bag o'guns as to whether they
are stolen or not

***I think the police are smart enough to know that the person with the bag o'guns will probably lie to them. If the gun has been reported as stolen, the police have a reason to arrest the person possessing the stolen gun that they would not have if the gun had been stolen and the police had no report or reason suspicion that it had been stolen. ***

2.The point of the law is to make the person who owns a gun responsible for what happens to the gun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed a gun owner should take responsibility, I think we disagree about the level of responsibility. Should
I be guilty of murder if someone kills with a gun he stole from me?

***Should you be guilty of murder if you allow a person to drive your car while drunk? Should you be criminally responsible if you hand car keys to a person you know is drunk and put them behind the driver's seat of your car?

Yes. (Not for murder but for negligent homicide.) Gun owners should take responsibility if someone kills someone with a gun he stole from the gun owner and the gun owner does not report the theft to the police. Yes. Because if some drunk stole your car and you knew the drunk stole it and was most likely driving it, you should most definitely be held responsible. A gun only exists to be shot and to kill or hit a target. There is no other purpose for it. At least, a car has another purpose -- transportation.

3.If you have a gun and you lend it to someone who uses it to massacre kids in a school, you will have a federal offense against you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that something new or something proposed? If something like that were to happen to me I would feel anquish beyond belief, but can
any crime someone might commit be predicted?

***Sometimes crimes can be predicted. Certainly not always, maybe not often, but probably more often than we would like to admit. If you are the mother of a child who has severe emotional problems, you should predict that the possibility the child will do something irresponsible and maybe very angry is great and not provide that child with a gun. Same for your friends or your spouse or other family members. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Similarly, friends don't give troubled friends a gun.

It's better to be safe than sorry. Remember that about loaning your gun to someone else. Don't do it.***

[Blue_Tires]

96. ok...So what changes would you make to revise this?

FWIW, the primary reason why we have such insane drug laws is because 1. It is very profitable for LEOs, the legal system and prison industry, and 2. Selective policing means it's much easier to keep minorities off the street (especially in VA)

[ileus]

12. Worded to fail...typical emotion based bill.

[Walk away]

85. Really? Why do you own a gun? nt

[JohnnyBoots]

13. They are over reaching.

A simple bill - 'Every gun bought in the United States shall require a NICS background check whether it be FFL or private sale.' A simple law like this would be much easier to pass. Train and license Notary Publics to be a place to do a back ground check and a transfer. This could work because it is simple and functional, unlike Congress.

The Gun Control people writing the bill are being greedy and trying to get too much alienating the other side. What they are doing is trying to write in things that are not functional and quite simply are there to annoy guns owners and infringe upon their rights. Also, many of the pro-control side will not rest until all guns are illegal. The RKBA will not give them an inch because it is like an NFL team defending against the other side getting a first down in the war on the 2nd Amendment.

[jmg257]

16. Great - but what about non-sales? Say I just want to "give" my gun to some perp,

or "lend" it to some stranger for an indeterminate length of time with no checks, would those "transfers" be OK?

Obviously the attempt is to distinguish between common lawful 'transfers' and ones that would be used to contribute to the illegal flow of arms. It identifies and allows for gifts in immediate families, and "temporary tranfers" that regular people may encounter - lending your gun out for valid hunting purposes, letting your buddy shoot your piece at the range or handle your gun in your home, having people at your house for short periods.

Passing simple laws isn't all that simple, not when you need to allow for some typical behaviors, but limit other similiar behaviors that can lead to issues/be illegal. If doing 'simple' was all that is wanted, I am sure a bill could quite easily be written simply outlawing all semi-autos with detachable magazines, or ALL magazines with a capacity greater then X, and there would then be no beef about 'features tests', or dates on mags, or whatever. Unfortunately that is not the reality when laws need to be passed in the real world with the 2nd, the NRA, gun owners, others who disagree for some reason.


Let's face it, in order to increase regulations on guns, gun owners might just have to be inconvenienced, and more responsible about things....remembering their hunting liicenses while hunting, noticing when a gun is stolen or missing ASAP and reporting it, limiting giving guns to others, and limiting access to their guns by other people.

Sorry -but that is why it is called 'control'. We all simply agree or not, and that determines if the law (or a modified version of it) will be passed or not.

[Clames]

18. Gun owners won't be inconvenienced by laws that don't work.

This law, in its current form, can be ignored. There is no enforcement mechanism for it. Why no incentive for gun owners to voluntarily comply? How about a tax deduction for a percentage of the fair market value of the firearm?

[jmg257]

22. How about not going to federal prison? A procedure to enforce federal firearm laws

shouldn't be all that hard to implement.

&quot B) knowingly violates subsection....
"..shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five
years, or both."

Avoiding hefty fines and a few years and in prison seems a viable deterent for truly law-abiding citizens to want to remain lawful.

On a related note, I love to keep hearing how so many gun owners are really not all that lawful, and will actually be freely breaking laws, and especially when not given the proper selfish incentives to abide by them. Such types actually sound like a bunch of gun fucking asses, and not all that law-abiding at all. Always good to get an update on what/who any controls are up against, and to re-iterate once again why they are so important.

[Clames]

23. How about "prove it".

Maybe you aren't very aware of how this works but I'll fill you in as best as your ability to comprehend allows. Unless you have a database that links my firearms directly to me by make, model, and serial number you don't have a case unless you are standing over my shoulder at all times. I can sell a gun to one of my friends and it becomes a case of your word against ours and the burden of proof belongs to you. You have no documentation, you have no proof that I originally owned the firearm, and this could be a firearm that has changed hands several times before. Now multiply this scenario by millions and try explaining why it shouldn't be all that hard to implement...

[jmg257]

24. I understand the hardship of proving 2 people committed an illegal transfer.

We talked about that re: Colorado. My point there was not fear that the feds would know it instantly and swoop in and charge you both.
It was the case where the buyer implicates the seller after he fucks up for some reason, or even a 3rd party rats you out. Their statements could certainly be used to charge you, as most arrest procedures start with other citizens simply filing complaints.


In the mean time - let's hear MORE about "responsible" & "law-abiding" gun owners...



right up until they are not!

[Clames]

26. Buyer isn't going to implicate anyone....

...since they are party to the crime. Also, the buyer would have to prove they bought the gun from the seller.....without documentation. You really don't get this.




Let's here about "common sense gun control laws"...


...that never were...

[jmg257]

27. Universal Background Checks are a good example, along with registration of course.

Assault Weapon and hi-cap mag bans make sense too, as there is no good reason not to pass them.


Now, let's hear MORE about why such laws and yes - adequate enforement - are needed...educate us about all your law-abiding gun owner buds who will freely break the law! We are very interested in the behavior of criminals.

[Clames]

28. Plenty of good reasons not to press them as they are currently written.

They are ineffective and do not accomplish the stated purpose. How does a law that doesn't accomplish what it is supposed to do make sense? Is that your definition of common sense?


There is reality and then there is the world the anti-gunners live in. A world where the "spirit of the law" materializes to handcuff evil gun owners...

[jmg257]

29. I understand about gun owners ignoring the spirit of the law. AWB was a great example,

of manufactureres providing legal alternatives...loopholes abound when trying to balance behaviors. That's what led to Feinstein saying she wish she could have had everyone just turn in all the AWs.
Ah well...

Still - finding loopholes is not quite the same as a so-called lawful citizen purposely & freely committing acts he knows are actually illegal, simply because he may not get caught.

So now I also better understand that my notion of 'law-abiding' is very different then yours, and apparently millions of other gun owners. Sorry - I forgot the selfishness involved of so many gun freaks (AKA not law abiding at all)



As noted previously - that is very good to know.

Cheers for the heads ups.

[gejohnston]

30. how is that worse than

bong owners ignoring the letter of the law? If you have a stash, you are being hypocritical about "so-called lawful citizen purposely & freely committing acts he knows are actually illegal, simply because he may not get caught."

[jmg257]

31. Good thing I don't have a stash then isn't it?

Nor ever had one or plan on ever having one.

[Clames]

32. Funny, when presented an idea on how to make the law a bit more reasonable....

...your response was basically "fuck them, throw them in jail". So obviously you have no interest in compromise. All you are really interested in is demonizing all gun owners and having your little tantrums when your poorly written laws get shot down. Your notions haven't changed one bit.


Guess what? Until your attitude changes you can wish all you want but don't expect much for your unicorn farts of "common sense" gun control...

[jmg257]

33. You mean offering tax breaks to get people to follow the law?

Naa - not worth the money, which would be better spent enforcing the laws on criminals, or to feed the hungry. It also should NOT be needed, as normal real LAW ABIDING people agree to follow laws as being part of a society...all that 'for the common good', & 'establish justice' stuff. Bribing the people with cash incentives shouldn't be necessary, and is bad precedent.

YOU said "Gun owners won't be inconvenienced by laws that don't work". And "This law, in its current form, can be ignored".

YOU were arguing the laws in question weren't enforcible, and simply because of that, and because they might be inconvenient, illustrated how millions of gun owners will willingly ignore them.

So, in fact - YOU were the one demonizing gun owners -by declaring again that they aren't actually very law-abiding AT ALL. And THAT is where I say 'fuck them - throw them in jail'. Criminals should be jailed as punishment for breaking laws, and as a deterence. Make laws enforcible, and then enforce them.

I consistently tended to believe most people, including gun owners, would follow the laws...up until gun owners like you insist, & often state unequivically, that just is not the case.


YOU REALLY need to re-think who has an attitude about gun owners.

[Clames]

36. Not worth the money? LOL

You want to curb gun violence and now it isn't worth the money??? FAIL. As for the rest of your screed: bullshit. Stick vs. Carrot and you aren't going to do much a rotten stick. Reality is that you advocate for laws that don't work and I offered a way to at least have some small success. Plenty of programs offer similar incentives to at least get something started. My suggestion might even get the law passed. I offered a compromise, you just whine. Guess what? The law will fail and it will be business as usual until the next tragedy. You advocate failure because you have no interest in compromise or common sense.

[jmg257]

37. Yep-let us compromise..by bribing "law-abiding" gun owners as the means to get them to...

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

...wait for it - comply with laws.

Brilliant notion, that! AND funny. "law abiding" but only if bribed - VERY funny!

I know, I know - I advocate for sensible laws, figuring most people will abide by them. And that those who don't should be faced with penalties. How novel!! And I see THAT is whining in your book, that - but NOT making statements about how 'I'm not going to be inconvenienced' and 'I need $$$ to comply with laws!'?!


Again you REALLY need to re-think about who is doing what - this time whining and throwing tantrums.

You really are funny,
in a sad little way.

But seriously, does your selfishness know ANY bounds?? You won't be inconvenienced, you won't comply with laws you don't like or where you see little chance of it being proven you committed a criminal act.
Stand-up citizen, you are...the NRA must be SO proud! But still...you are a bit amusing. Except of course for what is at stake due due to such selfishness.

And you say there are millions just like you? Well, fuck the rest of us, we are really screwed.


I apologize. I get it now - I see I drastcially under-estimated the selfishness AND the willingness to break laws of so many gun owners. Here I thought the most avid controllers were mostly exaggerating all of that, but there you are, being adament that they are right. Weird, that.

Hmm..so I think I got it right now - many many gun owners are law-abiding, until they aren't. Then they become (selfish) gun fuckers who will willingly violate the law, and/or kill a bunch of people with their guns.

Hmm...it is really kind of sad, actually.

I agree with you - new laws must be much more strict, and VERY specific, and enforceable & enforced of course, and include very heavy penalties if we want them to be effective to reign in these unlawful clowns.

[Clames]

40. I'm not whining one bit.

There isn't a law out there I have to worry about being in violation of. I have several semi-auto firearms that sit in a safe and will continue to do so for years to come. That's reality. You have nothing and you better get used to it until you figure out how to change your attitude. Until then

[jmg257]

41. I know...I said I get it - if one is willing to break the law, then they don't worry about the law.

Really - lesson learned...you can cry to someone else now about how you just refuse to be inconvenienced.


Wow! What a startling "reality" - you too have guns sitting in a safe!? And semi-autos??? OMG!!!

Well - yee haw!!...just look.at.you!




(psst...despite even your self-proclaimed willingness to be a criminal, I really am not all that worried about your "several semi-autos" sitting in your safe - it's actually a great place for them.)

(pssst #2...if you can keep from breaking the law, or do some other stupid shit with them, no one else will worry about them either!)

[Clames]

43. You still don't get it.

There is not one law I'm violating. I'm not being inconvenienced. You're the one in need of a bulk supply of tissues. Nothing being proposed has any impact on me, nothing is retroactive.




(pssst...I'm not worried about anything from those like you. Extremists on both sides are all talk....:rofl

[jmg257]

45. Ahh - I see. You were grandstanding about your specific present state, and NOT

like earlier in the thread, when bragging about how you and millions of gun owners will be ignoring laws.

Gotcha!


You need tissues? WTF? What happened, did our little chat about your AMAZING "reality" of having it all with "several semi-autos sitting in a safe" get you all hot? "Hmm...that's nice!" Well, disgusting...atleast make sure you unload them 1st!


Eww...Anyway, good for you about being less worried about something! As I said - you really don't have to be worried...about anyone...IF you can keep yourself (oh, and the millions like you you say are out there) from breaking the law, NO ONE will care!

(psst...and if I run across any extremists - I'll let them know you're good with them too!)

[Clames]

48. Tissues are yours...

...just for the tantrum you are throwing.



I and millions of gun owners are law abiding and nothing you can do will change that. Of course that assumes you'll ever do more than rant on the internet...

[jmg257]

52. Not now, maybe after the next massacre. I do get emotional when people get blasted by the dozens,

and especially kids. And not emotional because it will give a good excuse to buy another gun as so many gun owners see it, but out of genuine sadness. (Likely cause I don't equate having it all with having several semi-autos in my safe, unlike others here).

No worries - much more comfortable 'ranting' right here. Often surprised so many up here place so much importance on the comments of others.

Still - it is good to hear you and other gun owners may indeed be lawful, which of course is what I thought for the most part all along. So then the law isn't all that bad after all.

Curious - why you had the sudden change of heart?

[Clames]

57. No change of heart.

Same as it was long before you showed up here. I don't know why you are surprised, you seem to put a whole lot of importance on my little posts. Or is that self-importance?

[jmg257]

59. Simply going by your evolving Statements, 1st you stated gun owners

Won't be inconvenienced, and also said that the laws could be ignored, in millions of scenarios. And that gun owners should be bribed to abide by law.

THEN you said you and gun owners are/will be law-abiding and nothing will change that.

Soo??? For fuck's sake...Which is it?? Are you a law breaking gun fucker, or not??


Not surprised at all, just curious...it really is not my fault you can't keep your statements straight, no matter how trivial they may be. Though I still think finding out the truth about rxactly what so many gun owners consider "law-abiding" is very revealing...and VERY important to this discussion.

[Clames]

60. You must be confused or projecting.

Only one whining is you. I simply made observations on how poorly constructed the laws you seem to like are.

[jmg257]

61. Uh huh, which you did, all the while you were spouting the how and why you and millions others

Just.will.not.abide.by them. And why you should be paid to follow laws, otherwise they just don't make sense.

Really, it is ok! I already said I understand the selfishness. I don't agree of course, but I do understand (I have been around lots of kids over the years..your tantrum, grandstanding, whining, bragging, self-centered notions, lies, observations...whatever they might appropriately be called, were nothing new).

As much emphasis as you put on how much it means to have a few semi-autos sitting in a safe, there really was no surprise. Tedious, curious, somewhat childish at times, and now quite boring, but no real surprise.

[Clames]

62. Still confused it seems.

Like I said, those were just simple statements. Your continued crying fits are very characteristic though. Whining and complaining about the truth you don't want to hear...

[jmg257]

63. Yep..confused by your contrasting statements...admittedly.

So, let's put an end to any whining and crying in this thread..it's simple, like your statements were.

Just tell us all...what IS the truth???

A) You are not worried about violating laws, you are currently breaking the law with your awesome semi-auto reality; or
B) you are not

A) You will willingly be a fucker with a gun who knowingly breaks or ignores the law if inconvenienced, not compensated with $$, or don't think you are likely to get caught; or
B) you won't ignore the law

A) Numerous (millions?) of gun owners just like you will willingly break the laws; or
B) will be "law-abiding" by actually abiding by laws

[Clames]

64. I'm not worried about violating any laws.

What laws do you assume I'm breaking now? You aren't getting any new laws I have to worry about either. You sure are concerned about not very much...

[jmg257]

65. I don't assume anything...lesson learned...going by what you have said.

So you will break the laws IF we get them? Is that what you just said?

Come on, be succinct. No more whining or crying involved. Just be clear.
More questions there too...I edited them to make it even easier for you to answer.

Yep...I am concerned with criminals, especially armed criminals. Most truly law-abiding people are. Because when "law-abiding" people with guns decide not to be, too often they use their guns to blast a bunch of other people. As stated earlier, it's when you dont break the law that other people really don't care.

So, which is it?

[Clames]

66. I found your cat.

He sure takes after you.

[jmg257]

67. Now that's funny! So anway, still waiting for you to own up.

Or should I assume your done, and are back to being childish?

[Clames]

68. Own up to what?

If you have failed to follow along up to now then there really isn't much I can do for you.

[jmg257]

69. Your conflicting statements of course. You are law abiding or you aren't.

Which is it?

You will violate laws you don't like, or you won't.
Gun owners are law-abiding, or they are not.

Simple enough for you to clalrify...So why not do so?

[Clames]

70. My my....what a Puritan you are.

Black and White and nothing in between.

You might need to take a nap.

[jmg257]

71. Awww..so cute! I know, this is all rather tedious, and I did mention boring too.

Got it. You are obviously quite willing to break the law. Noted.

You are also obviously done contributing in any meaningful way, and had been for quite some time now. Should have realized you were just trolling at the 1st mention of one disagreeing with you as "whining". They'll be proud at CC and FR.

Lesson learned - again.

[Clames]

72. Here take this.

It might be dangerous where you are going.

[jmg257]

73. Wow..big eyes! Its Ok, I have several semi-autos sitting in a safe!

And you can't do anything about them!

I'll be just fine!

[Clames]

74. Not as effective as kittens.

[jmg257]

75. That one cracks me up! Careful, you'll scratch your eye out!

But they are big semi-autos, with big mags. (shit sorry...hope your not getting all excited again!)

[Clames]

76. Nah only one of mine takes mags.

The other uses a rather small clip.

[jmg257]

78. Are all those cats yours?

Hmm..a small auto that takes a clip?

Is it old?

[Clames]

79. I wish.

Not old, just a classic.

[jmg257]

80. Cats are cool, I'm more a dog person...used to be anyway.

Shit..I'm thinking 'handgun' for some reason...semi-auto that takes a clip is often an M1, definitely a classic. I guess an en-bloc can be considered small. Hmm...

[Clames]

81. Bingo.

I like both but cats are lower maintenance.

[jmg257]

84. True...Talk about poorly writtten laws, try deciding if an M1

is legal in NY, definitively. And whether the clips are ammo feeding devices, or not.
Or if the exception list is valid, or not.

Now THAT I would whine about!

[Clames]

86. To be absolutely safe you could buy 5 round en bloc clips.

Or cut up an 8 round clip to modify it for single round feeding. The Garand still passes the 1 feature test, the M1 Carbine does not in any of its variants.

Though don't pull a Clint Eastwood and tell kids to get off your lawn with one. Or empty chairs either.

[jmg257]

87. The Carbine is another winner...the SAFE Act USC Appendix A exception list

gives examples of M1 carbines, including 1 with bayo lug, "or replicas there-of", so they SHOULD be fine.

Yet the list is no longer part of federal law, so, is it still a valid list???


An issue with new purchases of Garands is the 'fixed internal magazine' is larger then 7 rounds, which is apparently a no-no, but likely not. Fed DOJ and CA DOJ have never held that an en-bloc (or regular stripper clips) is/are a "feeding device", but who knows how NY interprets it? Is loading only 7 rounds in an en-bloc necessary, or pulling 2 rounds out of the stripper clips for say, an SKS? I would think not, but...

Then there is the G22 - .22 that certainly fits the AW discription, but it is a .22lr, so does it count?


Anyway - likely be rolled back to 10 rounds anyway, but till then...A bit whine-able!

[jmg257]

77. Or Charlton Heston!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

[brett_jv]

38. Probably 80% of the laws on the books ...

Are laws that really can't be enforced a majority of the time, simply because there's not a law-enforcement agent hanging out with every person, 24/7. Every drug law on the books meets this same criteria, for example. However, our prisons are CHOCK-FULL of people who are there for drug-related crimes, mostly simple possession.

Ergo, although drug laws are pretty much IDENTICALLY 'unenforceable' as the proposed gun control laws, they SOMEHOW managed to GET enforced on a very, very regular basis.

You appear to be arguing that we can't make a law that's 100% universally enforceable at all times, then we shouldn't bother to make them at all. And to that, I just have to say ... bullshit. We do this ALL THE TIME, and if your criteria had to be applied to every law all the time, then we'd basically have no laws whatsoever. Hell, people sometimes get away with murder. So you know, we should strike murder as a crime from the law books, cause it's 'unenforceable'.

IOW, your particular line of argument is little more than sophistry.

[Clames]

39. Problem with your drug analogy....

...is that simple possession is enough and it applies to everyone. Simple possession doesn't work with firearms (see 2A). Of course looking at our prisons and the resounding failure of our war on drugs says a lot too. Maybe you want to rethink that one...

[brett_jv]

42. It's really irrelevant what particular class of law I use for the analogy ...

You want a different analogy ... how about we use incest? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that probably 90% of the time, incest goes undetected, unreported, etc, because it's something that takes place nearly always in the privacy of someone's home, and we don't have law enforcement watching over everyone at all times.

But, according to the logic you appear to be putting forth, we really shouldn't have made laws that make it illegal for dads to bugger their little girls, on account of most of the time, we're just unable to enforce them, so ... you know, nevermind.

Fact is, there's 1000's of laws that could be similarly described as 'unenforceable' by simple virtue of the fact that people are going to get away with breaking them more times than not ... but we still HAVE these laws, if for no other reason, they're there in order to direct people w/regards to what is lawful and what is not, and so that we have recourse in the instances when it DOES become known/provable that they have been broken.

And please don't engage in the logically-invalid tactic of expressing outrage over my 'comparison' between gun control laws and incest laws instead of addressing the underlying point.

[Clames]

44. You are right alt one thing, there are thousands of of poorly written laws.

One more won't hurt....

[jmg257]

46. Hey - some pro-gun senator was just on with Wolf Blitzer.

Spouting the NRA points about how control laws are useless because, although gun owners will abide by them, criminals won't.

Ya might want to call him up and let him know how wrong he is...that gun owners won't abide by them either!

[Clames]

49. I'll call Best Buy and have them send you a new TV.

You probably kicked and bit the old one....

[jmg257]

50. Ha - now I don't care who you are - THAT is funny! :)

(actually I was listening on the radio)

But I'll still take that TV!

[beevul]

55. Thats an nra talking point?

That gun owners generally abide by the law, but criminals don't, is an nra talking point?

Isn't each massacre in a gun free zone, the most undeniable proof there is, of half of that equation?

[jmg257]

56. Yep..you know those old 'criminals, by definition, break laws', 'if you outlaw guns...'

&c. memes. Plus new ones like 'background checks will never be universal, cause criminals won't submit to them', "Criminals have and use magazines without any limitation in capacity,", "...put law-abiding citizens at a grave disadvantage to criminals, who will not comply..." "putting the fedral govt right in the middle of every firearms transaction, except those between criminals...", "Criminals, by definition, have zero regard for the law. Criminals simply do not obey gun bans, register their firearms or comply with any gun control schemes" &c &c &c.


I agree criminals break laws. I was a bit surprised to learn "law-abiding" gun owners will readily do so also. They will not be inconvenienced and will ignore laws If they have a good chance of not getting caught.

[beevul]

89. Everyone has a line in the sand.

I'm sure there are laws you'd break, as well, if they were enacted.

Will you obey every potential law ever passed?

Beyond that...I asked if those were "nra talking points", not "pro-gun talking points".


I haven't seen any proof that the nra has anything to do with those...and even if they do, invoking the phrase "nra talking point" doesn't make them factually untrue.

[jmg257]

90. Yes - they were all from NRA speakers. Wayne, Keene, lawsuit in NY.

Yes, I am sure if a law was passed to say, shoot my kids in the head, I would not willingly abide by it.
I am sure if a law was passed to say, rape little children, I would not willingly abide by it.

So no, I would not likely obey EVERY potential law.


But laws passed for the common good that might offer a little inconvenience or infringement to/on selfish wants & needs, or that COULD be ignored just because the risk is low, or 'should' ignored cause they lack $$$ incentive?

Certainly will do all I can to willingly abide.

[beevul]

91. Were they...?

Were they simply said by them, or did they originate from them?

The implication of "nra talking point" is pretty clear. Do those statements mesh with the implication?

"nra talking point" is thrown about far too easily and loosely these days, and is generally used as a convenient way to dismiss and not have to address something, that someone else says, that the dismisser doesn't like or want to address. A cheap debate tactic, in other words.


"But laws that might offer a little inconvenience or infringement to/on selfish wants & needs, or that COULD be ignored just because the risk is low? Certainly will do my best to willingly abide."

Laws that might offer a little "inconvenience"...Who decides what level of inconvenience is ok?

Laws that might offer a little "infringement" seem to me, to be venturing into the area of "shall not be infringed"...


And as to "selfish wants and needs", we've covered this ground before. Its not selfish to say "no more new gun laws" until you do a bunch to make it far more difficult for the person who does have the gun illegally with bad intent, to pull off whatever he/she intends to do. As I have said, everyone seems to be looking to ignore that area, and concentrate directly on the guns, which makes the motives of those doing that very suspect. Now, you can call those who hold such sentiments paranoid, however, you'd have to ignore a whole lot of statements of intent from the people ignoring the aforementioned areas, such as "I'm not interested in crime, I just want to get the guns", and "its just the beginning", and the like. A "little inconvenience or infringement" in the face skipping over that area, combined with those statements that spell out the intentions of those making them, I think, becomes "a lot". I doubt very much that I'm alone in that thinking, and I don't see it as selfish at all.

In fact, I'd call it prudent.

[jmg257]

92. You can figure out the nuances. I qouted NRA reps. Not sure how the points

they mentioned figure in to your...'argument'. Actually saw the same quote in different sources from different times, so that was clearly a talking point. Use "Strongly held opinion of the NRA that is often heard" if it makes you feel better.


"Who decides what level of inconvenience is ok?"
I imagine we the people, and our reps who pass the laws. Courts also get involved.

venturing into the area of "shall not be infringed"...

Of course, but as the SCOTUS says, infringements are allowed, there is also goverment interests, etc. Plenty of infringements have been enacted over the years - they are nothing new at all.

"everyone seems to be looking to ignore that area, and concentrate directly on the guns, which makes the motives of those doing that very suspect."

Could be, but not always the case. AWBs are often part of a larger crime bill. Maybe THEY figure controlling gun IS the best way to reduce gun violence? Sure they would be more apt to concentrate on guns if they had nothing to lose, had no positive experience with them, etc. It could also be that we hang out in areas where Guns are THE subject, so we miss other possible provisions, or not talk about them so much (legalizing drugs comes to mind, dealing with gangs, repeat offenders, etc.)

"I don't see it as selfish at all."

Of course it's selfish (for the most part, others are noble re: rights), whether prudent or not. And understandable - you don't want infringements on things you want, or perceive a need for. I, and most people, don't either. If I felt a powerful NEED to have a gun on me all the time, I wouldn't want someone to take that ability away. If I just loved shooting ARs with 30 round mags with my kids, I wouldn't WANT to give that up. &c. Whether its fear or want or desire, there are many selfish reasons people want guns, and reasons not to have their access infringed, or if so as little as posible. Like 'fear', self-interest is NOT necessarily a bad thing to shun, or not admit to...it's all part of the pursuit of happiness we are entitled to.

Anyway, its ALL about weighing those perceived needs against the ability to do better for all, IF just some portion of the liberty can be given up. Of course there will be disagreements on just how much a portion is necessary to be surrendered, so the rest can be better secured. That's what our system of govt was created to figure out.

[brett_jv]

54. Well, I don't know that 'difficult to enforce' necessarily equates to 'badly written' ...

I think the 'problem', to the extent that there is one, has more to do with the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the USA is not (currently) a country where we have law-enforcement monitoring everything that everyone does, at all times, looking out for illegal acts.

Personally, I can live with the reality being that a fairly large % of our laws are of a nature where people can circumvent them a good % of the time, simply because we're generally a 'free' society, where the cops can't legally get all up in our business w/o showing 'probable cause'.

That's just me ...

And for the record, I think the 'war on drugs' is a friggin (bad) joke. But it's not because these laws are unenforceable so much of the time. It's because I think it does more harm than good. And if you were making THAT argument in this particular case, I'd be much more inclined to entertain it

[Clames]

58. Careful. That kind of rational thought earns labels from a few more vocal advocates.

Might get called a "gun fucker" or a "hidden criminal".

And definitely that the War on Drugs has done vastly more harm than good. War on Booze didn't do much good either. Some here feel a War on Guns will have a different outcome. Some slept through History class.

[holdencaufield]

83. I once built a bridge ...

... but no one calls me "bridge builder"

But .... f*ck ONE gun and you're labeled for life.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Really?

[kudzu22]

15. Tell me again how this is regulating interstate commerce

I really don't see it.

[Clames]

17. Nothing in the OP says anything about interstate commerce.

So of course you won't see it.

[kudzu22]

19. Correct. My comment was directed at Congress, no the OP.

I should have been more clear.

[Clames]

20. Got ya now.

I'd question how much was spent crafting that 15 pages of junk. How many reams of paper used to print out copies to pass around only to end up in the shredder?

[petronius]

21. I think it would be much better if the definitions of 'transfer' simply excluded

any/all temporary possession while in the company of the actual owner. The way it is now, they've explicitly excluded loans at the shooting range and loans while hunting, but listing those two situations leaves loans while sport shooting (not hunting) away from the range as a transfer requiring a background check. I wonder if the authors simply didn't realize how many people target shoot on public land outside of ranges, that it's not just - or even mostly - hunting that goes on outside an official shooting range?

[Clames]

25. What about CCW exclusion?

Say someone lets another borrow a pistol to see if it is something they'd CCW.

[upaloopa]

51. You read this law, interpreted it for yourself and

came up with those conclusions your self?

My guess this off some gunner web site or something.

[mwrguy]

97. Exactly

This is straight from the NRA.

[Skip Intro]

98. But is it accurate? nt

[upaloopa]

99. What do you mean by asking a question?

What's with asking question shit? Make a statement or nothing. Where did you gunners get this shit of asking questions as a debate thing? It is so lame and so fucking over used. Get some new material OK?

[Skip Intro]

100. sarcasm?

[ManiacJoe]

102. A prime example of failing the knowledge test.

To be able to answer the "Is [the interpretation] accurate?" question, one would need to:
- read the proposed bill
- understand the proposed bill
- compare the previous interpretation with your interpretation.

While it is reasonable to believe that most folks at DU are capable of all three tasks, most usually fail at doing the initial reading.

[madville]

101. I think the bill that actually gets passed

Will be very watered down. It will probably allow private individuals to run someone through the federal background check system before they sell the firearm.

It may also exempt transactions between individuals that have a prior established relationship or maybe between concealed carry license holders since they have already had a background check and have an ID to prove it. Also looks like there will be no actual records of the transaction saved by the government.

Then the House will water it down more. I would like the option to run a buyer through the system, selling to strangers is risky business as it is.