[redbaron007]

There is no loophole. It's a legal transaction.

Bloomy doesn't like individuals to have the freedom of commerce! Therefore, he vilifies it to the public sheep who know no better.



red

[Bren]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Oh...nothing.

At this point we're just sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Looking to see who "gets it", and who doesn't.

You really think that the people who don't agree with your plan to make selling your guns illegal, just "don't get it." More than a few times, you've made it clear you aren't really in touch with the reaol world of shooters. Congratulations on one more time.

[tehan2]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Please read this thread. And reply there, since the topic has certainly changed here.

I think "we get it", let me paraphrase. It's spineless piss-ants like yourself that we should be worried about. People "like you" that think if we give "them" (I know "they" aren't the rabid antis anymore) just a little bit that they'll be happy.

It's gun owners like you that don't "get it"...Instead of giving them a little bit we should be digging our heels in deeper and holding stronger. We should not be divided, for we will be easily conquered.

Your voice does not represent me...I am not ashamed or embarrassed to be a gun owner, especially not one that owns multiple EBRs.

You are correct however that we have a problem in this country. but it's not a gun problem. It's a personal responsibility problem, it's a generational problem, and it's a parenting problem. What it shouldn't be is a problem for law abiding gun owners like (you? and) me

Instead of sticking our heads in the sand, we should be vocal. What happened Friday was a tragedy, and I actually wept for those children. But it is not the fault the weapon he used.

As I know the events, the shooter
1. killed his mother which is a crime
2. stole her guns, another crime
3. was underage to possess a gun, another crime
4. went to a school with a gun, another crime
5. trespassed, yet another crime
6. committed 25 additional murders
7. killed himself, another crime

about the only thing that wasn't illegal in that chain of event is the guns that he used. His mother legally owned them and they were compliant with the current AWB that is in place in CT. Passing another gun law will not have changes ANYTHING from that day. And that is the message that we should be sending

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Oh Good Christ....

Another one that doesn't "get it".

Sorry son, but read ALL of the posts, and the link to another thread I posted. THEN you can comment with something knowledgable to say.

Well, since I have read ALL your posts, I believe I am knowledgable [sic] about your beliefs.

I stand by my previous comments.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Bren

You really think that the people who don't agree with your plan to make selling your guns illegal, just "don't get it." More than a few times, you've made it clear you aren't really in touch with the reaol world of shooters. Congratulations on one more time.

Exactly...

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Russ, your trying to equate Finestein, Bloomburg et al with "lions" clearly show you do not grasp the basic principals of how politics work in this country.

Please read this thread. And reply there, since the topic has certainly changed here.

Is that as far as you got in my post? Really?

There are numerous questions in there you did not answer.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Originally Posted by SpectreRider

Russ, I had not noticed your feeble-mindedness before.

Yeah, I know...

[racer11]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

I was at a show and found a SKS trooper I wanted and pulled out my money and asked for the paper work to fill out. The dude said thanks for the money and here's your gun. I had to ask him for a receipt,,,he gave me one. The table was all private guns,,,private meaning not a FFL dealer.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Well, it is absolutely your right to misinterpret the law in any manner you choose, and to try to impose your anti-freedom ideas on free people. I choose to fight you on it, and I will do so for as long as am able.

Freedom for who? Convicted felons? The criminally insane?

Felons give up certain rights once convicted. Like the right to vote, or to own a gun.

If I told you that felons were using a loophole to vote, would you be okay with that?

So why shouldn't I, as a law-abiding gun owner, be just as concerned with laws that easily allow felons or the insane to circumvent the ban on them owning firearms (ie, FTF sales with no background check).

Even the Court in the Heller case emphasized this: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" (p. 54).

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

Freedom for who? Convicted felons? The criminally insane?

Felons give up certain rights once convicted. Like the right to vote, or to own a gun.

If I told you that felons were using a loophole to vote, would you be okay with that?

So why shouldn't I, as a law-abiding gun owner, be just as concerned with laws that easily allow felons or the insane to circumvent the ban on them owning firearms (ie, FTF sales with no background check).

Even the Court in the Heller case emphasized this: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" (p. 54).

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson

Get your head out of the buttcrack of prohibited classes

Laws against felons and the insane owning guns are as meaningless as any gun laws. They will get them. So don't give quarter to the government defining who can and cannot own guns or else one day you may find yourself defined into that class.

And finally it isn't a loophole. It is free citizens conducting commerce.

[BobRicks]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

Every gun show I go to I see tables with private sellers most of which have a sign saying "Private Seller" so you know you don't have to do paperwork.

[matt_n03]

The federal government has no jurisdiction in private sale of ANY item between two people living in the same state. It's no different if you want to sell someone your toaster or your gun, it's legally owned, you both live in the same state, and you have no reason to believe the other person can not legally own a firearm then the feds can't do anything about it. Interstate commerce means between states. If some state wants to try and ban private sells, fine, they have that right. The feds can go pound sand.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson

Get your head out of the buttcrack of prohibited classes

Laws against felons and the insane owning guns are as meaningless as any gun laws. They will get them. So don't give quarter to the government defining who can and cannot own guns or else one day you may find yourself defined into that class.

And finally it isn't a loophole. It is free citizens conducting commerce.

(1) Commerce is subject to all sorts of regulation. See Art. I, sec. 8, US Constitution (the same Constitution that protects your RKBA). ETA: states retain the same rights for intrastate commerce.

(2) So you REALLY have zero problem with private citizens selling guns to felons and the mentally ill? Really?

And you wonder why it's so easy for our side to be portrayed as nutjobs in the media.

[matt_n03]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

(1) Commerce is subject to all sorts of regulation. See Art. I, sec. 8, US Constitution (the same Constitution that protects your RKBA). ETA: states retain the same rights for intrastate commerce.

(2) So you REALLY have zero problem with private citizens selling guns to felons and the mentally ill? Really?

And you wonder why it's so easy for our side to be portrayed as nutjobs in the media.

Do the feds have any say if you want to sell a knife to someone? What about a chainsaw, baseball bat, golf clubs, your car, etc? Why are guns any different? Just because they look scary and go bang?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

(1) Commerce is subject to all sorts of regulation. See Art. I, sec. 8, US Constitution (the same Constitution that protects your RKBA).

Does the gunshow venue straddle state lines? If not, you're subscribing to the liberal progressive bastardization of the commerce clause in which not participating in commerce is participating in commerce and all sort of stupid stuff like that which gives the federal government authority over anything it so chooses.

(2) So you REALLY have zero problem with private citizens selling guns to felons and the mentally ill? Really?

1. I have no problem with a felon who has served his time owning a gun. Neither did Thomas Jefferson. The "high crimes" clause could have very easily been written into the second amendment, yet it wasn't.

2. I have a major problem with 4473, which is the tool of enforcement for prohibited classes. The federal government has no legitimate role in the transaction. It is a defacto gun registry, managed and enforced by an unconstitutional federal bureau.

3. These laws make no more sense than any other gun laws. The insane and those intent on using weapons for malicious acts will get the gun they want no matter what the law says. However, now you've opened the door to allowing the government to define what group of people are and are not permitted to buy and own.

Recently, folks like most of us here were identified by Janet Napolitano as potential domestic terrorists.

Very soon, the government will have a central database with all of your medical records.

No matter how righteous you may think you are, the day could come fairly soon where you could find yourself defined into a prohibited class.

You've been conditioned. "Shall Not Be Infringed"

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You've been conditioned. "Shall Not Be Infringed"

As a practical and legal matter, none of our rights listed in the BoR are absolute. At a minimum, all are subject to regulations as understood at the time of adoption.

Are there no restrictions on free speech? "Congress shall make no law" And yet, we have laws against libel. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc...

How about religion? Can Mormons practice polygamy?

How about the right to peaceably assemble? Can the government require you to get a permit before you hold a rally? Yup, sure can.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

As a practical and legal matter, none of our rights listed in the BoR are absolute. At a minimum, all are subject to regulations as understood at the time of adoption.

What do the words "Shall not be infringed" mean to you? Was that phrase included in any of the other 9?

Are there no restrictions on free speech? "Congress shall make no law" And yet, we have laws against libel. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc...

Even a cursory understanding of the First Amendment tells one that it is referring to The People speaking out against their government, not whatever noises come out of one's mouth no matter the damage done to another.

How about religion? Can Mormons practice polygamy?

Well it hasn't been a church teaching for over 100 years but, yes, from the federal perspective they should be able to. That seems obvious. You disagree? How does the Constitution grant the fedgov authority over marriage?

How about the right to peaceably assemble? Can the government require you to get a permit before you hold a rally? Yup, sure can.

But they can't deny it based on criminal history or mental status or any prohibited class. Nope. Sure can't. Hell, even the KKK gets the permit they apply for.

Even convicted felons and crazy people can get a permit to peacefully assemble and protest, can't they? How else do you explain the Democratic National Convention?

Crazy people get to vote.

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

What do the words "Shall not be infringed" mean to you? Was that phrase included in any of the other 9?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet the Supreme Court has never held this to be an absolute.

Well it hasn't been a church teaching for over 100 years but, yes, from the federal perspective they should be able to. That seems obvious. You disagree? How does the Constitution grant the fedgov authority over marriage?

They should be able to? So limiting the "free exercise" clause is okay, but no regs on felons buying guns under the 2A?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now that you understand the first amendment a little better, what laws has Congress passed that have done any of those things?

Yet the Supreme Court has never held this to be an absolute.

The Supreme Court is often wrong. If you haven't noticed, it is very much a political body.

They should be able to? So limiting the "free exercise" clause is okay, but no regs on felons buying guns under the 2A?

Where have they limited the free exercise clause?

Where have they done it to certain classes of people?

Can felons practice religion freely?

Can they petition the government?

Can felons peacefully assemble?

Can felons speak out against their government?

But this one particular God-given inalienable right, felons can be excluded from after completing their sentence? They are denied the natural right of self defense?

And they can't vote but they can be taxed? What about the whole no taxation without representation, bit?

[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Now that you understand the first amendment a little better, what laws has Congress passed that have done any of those things?



The Supreme Court is often wrong. If you haven't noticed, it is very much a political body.



Where have they limited the free exercise clause?

Where have they done it to certain classes of people?

Can felons practice religion freely?

Can they petition the government?

Can felons peacefully assemble?

Can felons speak out against their government?

But this one particular God-given inalienable right, felons can be excluded from after completing their sentence? They are denied the natural right of self defense?

And they can't vote but they can be taxed? What about the whole no taxation without representation, bit?

CF....some people have become sooo conditioned, especially through gubbermit public education...they can't see their nose on their face.

I have no disagreement with your comments!



red

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by Jack_Pine

Just for clarity it is my understanding that the show laws vary by state. California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island require checks for all sellers/buyers.

As I said, it varies. I believe some state don' allow private sales at shows and some do. I just saw a good list on the differences the other day but can't locate it...............

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gun.../Gun-Shows.htm

The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island

The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:

Hawaii
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania

In Florida, private firearms purchases are subject to background checks in some jurisdictions but not across the entire state. There are no laws regulating private firearms sales at gun shows in the remaining 33 states.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

So why shouldn't I, as a law-abiding gun owner, be just as concerned with laws that easily allow felons or the insane to circumvent the ban on them owning firearms (ie, FTF sales with no background check). (p. 54).

I understand your concern, Hen. One question - do 4473s and NICS (sorry, typo) satisfy you or would you press for more if you made all private sales go through an FFL?

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

As a practical and legal matter, none of our rights listed in the BoR are absolute. At a minimum, all are subject to regulations as understood at the time of adoption.

Are there no restrictions on free speech? "Congress shall make no law" And yet, we have laws against libel. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc...

How about religion? Can Mormons practice polygamy?

How about the right to peaceably assemble? Can the government require you to get a permit before you hold a rally? Yup, sure can.

I hate it when supposed Pro-Gun advocates use that example. The right of free speech is there until you use it illegally, IE the example you gave of yelling fire in a crowded theater, saying something that is libel or slanderous, etc. That is not the same as banning someone from having a firearm. The correct example is arresting, prosecuting, and jailing someone that uses a firearm illegally, not the mere possession of a firearm. In the example of free speech being regulated, you aren't being prevented from saying anything you want, you are being punished when you use it illegally. The same should apply to firearms. You should be punished when you use it illegally.

[Wyoming]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

Let me ask another way.

Has anyone every seen a private seller, with a table set-up inside a gunshow, selling firearms without NICS checks?

Yes. No problem in Wyoming. Do you live in a part of America where your people can't be responsible citizens?

When I get old I plan to sell my guns and pass some on to family and friends as gifts. What do you want me to do? The gun culture I know goes to work every day, pays their taxes and obey the laws.

[pizza_pablo]

WOW! Seven pages, in one day. Impressive!

Admittedly, I have not read all seven, so my comment most likely has been stated, previously, but just in case...

There is NO SUCH THING! Transactions, at gun shows must follow THE SAME, EXACT LAWS as anyplace else, in the country.

"GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" is a catch phase, like "ASSAULT RIFLE" or "ASSAULT WEAPON" made up by gun grabbers to instill fear and loathing to the ignorant people they pander for help from.

AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite. The company that manufactured the first M-16 STYLE rifle, for civilian use.
AR DOES NOT stand for assault rifle, like so many fools beleive.