GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2012, 21:05   #251
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
And what do you take that quote to mean?
It means that not even Jefferson would believe you could simply spout a quote from Jefferson and have it trump a Supreme Court decision regarding constitutionality based on the conditions existing today.

At the time of Jefferson's quote slaves could not own guns, but in the world of today we thankfully no longer even have slaves. When Jefferson made his "freeman" draft of the Virginia constitution that wasn't even adopted in Virginia, less than 1% of all blacks were "freemen". Women were not "freemen" who had the right to vote. Times change.

I am certainly not advocating any type of new laws or restrictions in allowing freemen to keep and bear arms today. But that does not mean if Jefferson thought individuals should be able to own cannons because the government owned cannons (which I think perhaps he did) that today individuals should be able to own nuclear weapons.

I happen to trust the opinions of Scalia and Thomas more than your (or any other "freeman's") opinion of what they should decide regarding constitutionality. Some other Supreme Court justices, not so much, but then I don't have a choice in whether to follow the Supreme Court decisions I don't agree with because that is the way it works under our Constitution.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:11   #252
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by stolenphot0 View Post
Face to face transactions between citizens, is what I believe is what they refer to as a "loophole"
I have never met anyone with a table that was selling his own guns. I find them on the net. O really get tired of the media arguing things that had no part in crimes that recently happened.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:23   #253
number1gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 201
I never said an individual should not be able to make an occasional sale to another person. What I am saying is if you are one of the fringe dealers that shows up to every show with new stock...you are a gun dealer and should abide by the rules AS A Gun dealer. It is simple..4473, background, etc. You have a duty to the public at large to make an effort to not transfer firearms to persons that do not meet the very small amount of criteria asked for. The fringe dealers are the 40% being talked about. I will never support you. So again for the slow people. If you make a regular income from the sale of firearms...you are a dealer and should be required to have an FFL and abide by the rules.
number1gun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:25   #254
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Was it not a quote attributable to Jefferson? Author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States?
Jefferson is hardly the absolutist you make him out to be. Since we're tossing around TJ quotes, let me add another:

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

-letter to John Colvin, Sept. 20, 1810

In fairness, you can read that to mean its okay to skirt federal firearms laws, or I can read it to give the 2A some breathing space outside of your absolutist interpretation.

Either way, TJ was hardly an absolutist. I seem to recall him skirting Congress entirely to make the Louisiana Purchase.
Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:37   #255
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
It means that not even Jefferson would believe you could simply spout a quote from Jefferson and have it trump a Supreme Court decision regarding constitutionality based on the conditions existing today.
We're not talking about trumping anything. We're talking about opinions. The gentleman we've been debating thinks all private sales need to go through FFLs. I, and many others, think the modern concept of prohibited classes grants the government new power it should not have via the legislative process and not the Constitutional one, while accomplishing little to nothing in terms of public safety, while denying citizens -- or as one of the early drafts of the 2A put it a portion of "the body of the people" their natural rights. I also doubt that the Jefferson foresaw a politicized court like we have today. Madison set forth a governmental structure to dissuade it.

Quote:
At the time of Jefferson's quote slaves could not own guns,
Kinda brings home the reason for owning a gun in the first place doesn't it?

Quote:
but in the world of today we thankfully no longer even have slaves. When Jefferson made his "freeman" draft of the Virginia constitution that wasn't even adopted in Virginia, less than 1% of all blacks were "freemen". Women were not "freemen" who had the right to vote. Times change.

I am certainly not advocating any type of new laws or restrictions in allowing freemen to keep and bear arms today. But that does not mean if Jefferson thought individuals should be able to own cannons because the government owned cannons (which I think perhaps he did) that today individuals should be able to own nuclear weapons.
Is it reasonable to assume that even during Jefferson's time there were men among them whom might not be considered trustworthy enough to own a weapon that could shoot through a school house? (cannon) or lay waste to a large gathering of people? Yet with all the deliberation and rewriting they never included so much as a phrase or clause that suggested giving the government the power to determine whether certain people would be allowed to own a gun based on past history or mental fitness?

Quote:
I happen to trust the opinions of Scalia and Thomas more than your (or any other "freeman's") opinion of what they should decide regarding constitutionality. Some other Supreme Court justices, not so much, but then I don't have a choice in whether to follow the Supreme Court decisions I don't agree with because that is the way it works under our Constitution.
All Scalia and Thomas wrote was that "although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings".

-- doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement so much as a "we aren't touching this today". Why else make a point of mentioning that they did not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the second amendment? I take that to mean they aren't addressing "Shall not be infringed". Of course I could be completely wrong.

Good discussion. Didn't mean to slice and dice your post up. Just trying to respond on point.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:38   #256
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
I never said an individual should not be able to make an occasional sale to another person. What I am saying is if you are one of the fringe dealers that shows up to every show with new stock...you are a gun dealer and should abide by the rules AS A Gun dealer. It is simple..4473, background, etc. You have a duty to the public at large to make an effort to not transfer firearms to persons that do not meet the very small amount of criteria asked for. The fringe dealers are the 40% being talked about. I will never support you. So again for the slow people. If you make a regular income from the sale of firearms...you are a dealer and should be required to have an FFL and abide by the rules.
There shouldn't be any "FFL" or 4473.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 12-20-2012 at 21:39..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:47   #257
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
Jefferson is hardly the absolutist you make him out to be. Since we're tossing around TJ quotes, let me add another:

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

-letter to John Colvin, Sept. 20, 1810

In fairness, you can read that to mean its okay to skirt federal firearms laws, or I can read it to give the 2A some breathing space outside of your absolutist interpretation.

Either way, TJ was hardly an absolutist. I seem to recall him skirting Congress entirely to make the Louisiana Purchase.
No one is talking about skirting federal firearms laws. Federal law does not require an FFL for a FTF private transaction. That's following the law.

What he seems to be saying very clearly is that a citizen should follow the law until the law runs contrary to the founding principles, which would be consistent with many of his other writings.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:50   #258
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
How is this true? The FFL fills out the form, then files it away in his records for 20 years. The form is never sent to the government. The only time the FFL is required to show the form is if it is requested as part of an investigation.

During the NICS phone call, no information is exchanged regarding the specific gun(s) being bought. The NICS call is only about the buyer's ability to buy a gun.

I may be wrong about this, so please correct me if I am.

If it is a de facto gun registration, having the most relevant data (make model and serial #) scatterd across the filing cabinets of thousands of FFLs hardly seems like the most efficient method.
The information is obviously used to track guns involved in crime. So the tracking mechanism is in place.

When an FFL closes shop, his records must be sent to the BATFE.

Is it centralized yet? No. Hopefully it never will be. But there records are there.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 21:57   #259
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
I never said an individual should not be able to make an occasional sale to another person. What I am saying is if you are one of the fringe dealers that shows up to every show with new stock...you are a gun dealer and should abide by the rules AS A Gun dealer.
How do you know it's "new stock" and not another part of a large collection?

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
It is simple..4473, background, etc. You have a duty to the public at large to make an effort to not transfer firearms to persons that do not meet the very small amount of criteria asked for. The fringe dealers are the 40% being talked about. I will never support you. So again for the slow people. If you make a regular income from the sale of firearms...you are a dealer and should be required to have an FFL and abide by the rules.
Do you define "regular income" as someone who just sells at a gun show? How much is a "regular" income? Sometimes they don't sell anything.

I know a number of local private individuals who buy, sell, trade at every gun show. A lot of them have been doing this for decades. Are they the fringe dealers as you say, or are just they doing their hobby?
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.

Last edited by 427; 12-20-2012 at 21:59..
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:00   #260
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
No one is talking about skirting federal firearms laws. Federal law does not require an FFL for a FTF private transaction. That's following the law.

Federal law- yes. State law- maybe, maybe not


What he seems to be saying very clearly is that a citizen should follow the law until the law runs contrary to the founding principles, which would be consistent with many of his other writings.

No he is saying that the Constitution and laws derived therefrom and the interpretation of those laws change over time. Otherwise amending the Constitution and the powers of the Supreme Court would not have been provided for.
I think there are a lot of posts indicating that some people believe private sales of firearms can result in the de facto skirting of Federal firearms laws. Whether that is the case and if so is it OK is what is being debated.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:15   #261
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post

When an FFL closes shop, his records must be sent to the BATFE.
I once had a conversation about this with a dealer. He said most guys who close shops claim to have had a fire or flood and tell the feds the records were lost so they dont have to deal with the hassle of sending them in. He made it sound common enough that the BATFE doesn't pursue it too hard if the records don't make it to DC.

In any case, I suspect the need for the records to be sent in is only so that the BATFE can become the custodian in fulfillment of the 20 year requirement (for investigations if needed).

Again, in terms of sinister gun-registration schemes, the random nature of which dealers close and who sends in their records to the feds hardly strikes me as a master plan to build a nefarious federal database.

I'll bet those records that are sent in sit in a warehouse somewhere in Dulles and are never even looked at.
Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:31   #262
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
I think there are a lot of posts indicating that some people believe private sales of firearms can result in the de facto skirting of Federal firearms laws. Whether that is the case and if so is it OK is what is being debated.
Quote:
No he is saying that the Constitution and laws derived therefrom and the interpretation of those laws change over time. Otherwise amending the Constitution and the powers of the Supreme Court would not have been provided for.
No CZ he isn't saying anything remotely like that. In fact, the quote has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I have to say that your bit about the interpretation of laws change over time, is a bit disturbing in that "The Constitution is a living, breathing document" kind of way.

Anyway, it is a fascinating read. Here is is:


Quote:
20 Sept. 1810Works 11:146
The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. When, in the battle of Germantown, General Washington's army was annoyed from Chew's house, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, although the property of a citizen. When he besieged Yorktown, he leveled the suburbs, feeling that the laws of property must be postponed to the safety of the nation. While the army was before York, the Governor of Virginia took horses, carriages, provisions and even men by force, to enable that army to stay together till it could master the public enemy; and he was justified. A ship at sea in distress for provisions, meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law of self-preservation authorizes the distressed to take a supply by force. In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of meum and tuum. Further to exemplify the principle, I will state an hypothetical case. Suppose it had been made known to the Executive of the Union in the autumn of 1805, that we might have the Floridas for a reasonable sum, that that sum had not indeed been so appropriated by law, but that Congress were to meet within three weeks, and might appropriate it on the first or second day of their session. Ought he, for so great an advantage to his country, to have risked himself by transcending the law and making the purchase? The public advantage offered, in this supposed case, was indeed immense; but a reverence for law, and the probability that the advantage might still be legally accomplished by a delay of only three weeks, were powerful reasons against hazarding the act. But suppose it foreseen that a John Randolph would find means to protract the proceeding on it by Congress, until the ensuing spring, by which time new circumstances would change the mind of the other party. Ought the Executive, in that case, and with that foreknowledge, to have secured the good to his country, and to have trusted to their justice for the transgression of the law? I think he ought, and that the act would have been approved. After the affair of the Chesapeake, we thought war a very possible result. Our magazines were illy provided with some necessary articles, nor had any appropriations been made for their purchase. We ventured, however, to provide them, and to place our country in safety; and stating the case to Congress, they sanctioned the act.

To proceed to the conspiracy of Burr, and particularly to General Wilkinson's situation in New Orleans. In judging this case, we are bound to consider the state of the information, correct and incorrect, which he then possessed. He expected Burr and his band from above, a British fleet from below, and he knew there was a formidable conspiracy within the city. Under these circumstances, was he justifiable, 1st, in seizing notorious conspirators? On this there can be but two opinions; one, of the guilty and their accomplices; the other, that of all honest men. 2d. In sending them to the seat of government, when the written law gave them a right to trial in the territory? The danger of their rescue, of their continuing their machinations, the tardiness and weakness of the law, apathy of the judges, active patronage of the whole tribe of lawyers, unknown disposition of the juries, an hourly expectation of the enemy, salvation of the city, and of the Union itself, which would have been convulsed to its centre, had that conspiracy succeeded; all these constituted a law of necessity and self-preservation, and rendered the salus populi supreme over the written law. The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. But those controlling powers, and his fellow citizens generally, are bound to judge according to the circumstances under which he acted. They are not to transfer the information of this place or moment to the time and place of his action; but to put themselves into his situation. We knew here that there never was danger of a British fleet from below, and that Burr's band was crushed before it reached the Mississippi. But General Wilkinson's information was very different, and he could act on no other.

From these examples and principles you may see what I think on the question proposed. They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:34   #263
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
I think there are a lot of posts indicating that some people believe private sales of firearms can result in the de facto skirting of Federal firearms laws. Whether that is the case and if so is it OK is what is being debated.
Some people also believe that federal laws regulating the sale of firearms have no foundation in the Constitution in the first place. That is what is also being debated.

Out of curiosity, do you know what portion of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulated the sale of firearms amongst private individuals?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:39   #264
number1gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 201
IMO they are dealers. If they go to shows with the intent to sell for profit. The IRS has pretty clear definitions as to Busniess or hobby. Many people get snagged every year for blurring the line. Thanks for bringing it up. The IRS can just show up and start snooping around. Good way to put an end to it. What is the resistance to a phone call for a so called background check. It is not specific in nature and the records are mandated to be purged after... I think 90 days. Here in Florida. I have not looked at the specifics lately. If the anti gun nuts want a pound of flesh I gladly give up unregulated, so called person to person gun show dealers.
number1gun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:42   #265
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I have to say that your bit about the interpretation of laws change over time, is a bit disturbing in that "The Constitution is a living, breathing document" kind of way.
Yes that is what I figured you would assume.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:42   #266
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
I once had a conversation about this with a dealer. He said most guys who close shops claim to have had a fire or flood and tell the feds the records were lost so they dont have to deal with the hassle of sending them in. He made it sound common enough that the BATFE doesn't pursue it too hard if the records don't make it to DC.

In any case, I suspect the need for the records to be sent in is only so that the BATFE can become the custodian in fulfillment of the 20 year requirement (for investigations if needed).

Again, in terms of sinister gun-registration schemes, the random nature of which dealers close and who sends in their records to the feds hardly strikes me as a master plan to build a nefarious federal database.

I'll bet those records that are sent in sit in a warehouse somewhere in Dulles and are never even looked at.
Interestingly enough I believe that is LYING TO A FEDERAL AGENT, which I believe is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Maybe not, unless the FFL is under investigation. That is definitely skirting federal gun laws if not outright breaking them.

And you're right. Perhaps nothing is done with them. On the other hand, with OCR technology they could be compiled into an electronic searchable database very easily.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:44   #267
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
Yes that is what I figured you would assume.
Was I incorrect? If so, what did you mean?

The meaning of laws change with time? How did you mean that?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:46   #268
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
IMO they are dealers. If they go to shows with the intent to sell for profit. The IRS has pretty clear definitions as to Busniess or hobby. Many people get snagged every year for blurring the line. Thanks for bringing it up. The IRS can just show up and start snooping around. Good way to put an end to it. What is the resistance to a phone call for a so called background check. It is not specific in nature and the records are mandated to be purged after... I think 90 days. Here in Florida. I have not looked at the specifics lately. If the anti gun nuts want a pound of flesh I gladly give up unregulated, so called person to person gun show dealers.
There ya go. Call the IRS and reign that misery down on your fellow citizens for simply buying and selling their own personal property in a manner you don't agree with.

You deserve a merit badge.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:48   #269
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Out of curiosity, do you know what portion of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulated the sale of firearms amongst private individuals?
As far as I know there is no federal law prohibiting the private sale of firearms in any location.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:49   #270
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


edited

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 12-20-2012 at 22:50..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:50   #271
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
As far as I know there is no federal law prohibiting the private sale of firearms in any location.
No. The power to regulate it. Not prohibit it.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:53   #272
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
IMO they are dealers.
Yeah, just your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
If they go to shows with the intent to sell for profit.
Who sells things to break even or lose money? Most people sell thing to make profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
The IRS has pretty clear definitions as to Busniess or hobby.
How is the irs going to get involved? It's a cash transaction. Who's going to report it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
Many people get snagged every year for blurring the line.
Where? When? I've been going to gun shows for years and have never heard of the IRS sangging a private seller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
Thanks for bringing it up.
no problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
The IRS can just show up and start snooping around.
the IRS can do a lot of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
Good way to put an end to it.
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
What is the resistance to a phone call for a so called background check.
If its so called as you say, implying it's not effective, why do it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
It is not specific in nature and the records are mandated to be purged after...
It's not specific in nature? It would have to be very specific in order to have background check about a specific person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
I think 90 days. Here in Florida. I have not looked at the specifics lately.
So you really don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1gun View Post
If the anti gun nuts want a pound of flesh I gladly give up unregulated, so called person to person gun show dealers.
Good for you! I'm not willing to appease anybody.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 22:58   #273
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Was I incorrect? If so, what did you mean?

The meaning of laws change with time? How did you mean that?
Every time the courts make a decision requiring the interpretation of the meaning of a law, the potential for the understood meaning of that law has the potential to change.

The provision granting Congress the power to maintain the nation’s “land and naval Forces” was eventually seen as authorizing an air force.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 23:13   #274
GunHo198
Senior Member
 
GunHo198's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,116
I've never seen any "private" guns for sale in Florida at tables at the Suncoast Gun shows. As far as I know they require you to have a retail storefront to get a table. However there are a bunch of people walking around inside and out trying to sell there personal firearms and even trade. I've bought 1 that way, and after thinking about it, there's no real way to know where the gun has been. Until I have the numbers ran, and if it came back bad I was going to be out some cash. Never bought one again that way. Fortunately the numbers were clean. The guy I bought it from seemed a little mental. My buddy said I probably did the community a good service....
__________________
This Message Sponsored in Part by "One Angry White Guy"!
GunHo198 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 23:22   #275
number1gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 201
Even within our own ranks we are quite divided on some issues. The reasonable and the flat out cant see the Forrest folks. I believe an absolute no compromise attitude will bring us to a point of failure this time around. Giving something that is already pretty much accepted and expected is not unreasonable. IMO. It's a freebie that costs nothing but a phone call.
number1gun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:40.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 848
195 Members
653 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42