- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:17 am to MrLarson
The proposal says sellers could go to FFL or transfer agents for a Form 4473 and a background check. Most gun dealers I'm aware of will tell you to GFY if they're not making money off the deal.
If they're going to implement this at gun shows, I'll walk out of the gun show and sell my firearm in the parking lot, where no federal paperwork or background check is required.
And here's a bonus: by walking out of the gun show and selling my firearm in the parking lot, I've instantly eliminated what the Dems and MSM call the gun show loophole. Same thing happening, but it's not a gun show loophole because I left the gun show. It's called private sales of firearms.
If they're going to implement this at gun shows, I'll walk out of the gun show and sell my firearm in the parking lot, where no federal paperwork or background check is required.
And here's a bonus: by walking out of the gun show and selling my firearm in the parking lot, I've instantly eliminated what the Dems and MSM call the gun show loophole. Same thing happening, but it's not a gun show loophole because I left the gun show. It's called private sales of firearms.
This post was edited on 9/18/19 at 9:22 am
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:17 am to bamarep
Why do democrats never have to give Republicans anything?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:20 am to TheHarahanian
Agreed, on net this law will shift sales to be outside of gun shows or classified ads, which would increase the number of private sales with no background check required.
Curious to see if this is all they are proposing or if red flag laws make the cut to. Red flag laws have the potential to cut into the second amendment way more than this background check extension to gun shows/commercial sales.
Curious to see if this is all they are proposing or if red flag laws make the cut to. Red flag laws have the potential to cut into the second amendment way more than this background check extension to gun shows/commercial sales.
This post was edited on 9/18/19 at 9:22 am
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:21 am to jimbeam
I think any gun control "compromise" should have some expansion of rights for law abiding gun owners. For example, pairing a law like this with concealed carry reciprocity.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:23 am to MrLarson
as with everything on gun control. impact the law abiding citizen and have zero effect on the actual law breakers.
this proposal will not effect "mass shootings" one bit.
also will not impact the #1 cause of gun death, suicide, 1 bit either......
this proposal will not effect "mass shootings" one bit.
also will not impact the #1 cause of gun death, suicide, 1 bit either......
quote:
The U.S. Department of Justice reports that about 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. In the U.S., firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 51% of all suicides committed in 2006.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:23 am to bamarep
quote:
We're gonna have to give them something. That being the case, this seems reasonable to me.
Having said that, this will do absolutely dick to impact mass shooting one iota.
Zero
Which is why we won't -we can't- give in. The incrementalism of firearm removal among the populace uses mass shootings only as smoke and mirrors. When this plan doesn't work there will be a cry for a little more (which also won't work) and a little more (which also won't work), etc. until either a solid run at the 2nd Amendment is made or there are so many regulations as to make legally owning a firearm nearly impossible.
For decades now we have said the end goal of all this is to confiscate firearms. Here we are now with a Democrat running for his party's Presidential nomination and he's so brazenly desirous of firearm confiscation that he's selling tshirts to celebrate his stance.
Straighten that spine and hold your fricking ground, man.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 9:56 am to bamarep
[quote]We're gonna have to give them something.
As Judge Smails said to Spaulding, “you’ll get nothing and like it.”
As Judge Smails said to Spaulding, “you’ll get nothing and like it.”
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:02 am to bamarep
quote:
We're gonna have to give them something.
Bull. We shouldn't give them a damn inch. If I have learned anything about "them" it is there is no reasoning with these people, there is no such thing as a compromise with them, to them anything given is seen as a step toward the path of their ultimate goal (complete confiscation they are already talking about it), I will not give a millimeter to these people.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:03 am to TaderSalad
quote:
As a law abiding citizen, I dont mind this measure
You don't mind government intervention, probably including temporary seizure of your weapons upon death, before allowing your children and other heirs to take possession?
quote:
ETA: I dont like the chain of custody type stuff though.
Well, then, you don't like the measure at all. Because it only works if there is at least a de facto registration scheme. Otherwise, there is literally no way to enforce any of it.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:04 am to bamarep
quote:
We're gonna have to give them something.
What do "we" ever get in return? A more heavily restricted, onerous "right" that is enshrined in the Constitution? Until it is chipped away to nothing?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:20 am to MrLarson
The Feds are trying to treat the sell of any type of firearm like a car title...frick that!
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:22 am to Ace Midnight
You know... The Dems won't even discuss Violent video games.. or Violent Rap Music... We should push for that junk not getting radio airplay.
I go to gun auctions regularly, and when I purchase a gun at the auction, I have to do a background check right there... The auctioner has it set up already.
I see this happening at guns shows. You see a vendor and you want to purchase a gun... You then have to go to the FFL dude or the chick on the phone to the FBI... DO the check.. GEt a clearence slip that you have to take back to the vendor to complete your sale.
Yup.. I see it happening.
I go to gun auctions regularly, and when I purchase a gun at the auction, I have to do a background check right there... The auctioner has it set up already.
I see this happening at guns shows. You see a vendor and you want to purchase a gun... You then have to go to the FFL dude or the chick on the phone to the FBI... DO the check.. GEt a clearence slip that you have to take back to the vendor to complete your sale.
Yup.. I see it happening.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:25 am to TideCPA
quote:mother fricking this.quote:
We're gonna have to give them something.
In exchange for what? I was told there would be a "compromise".
Gun owners have been compromising their rights away for 100 years. But it’s never an actual compromise, it’s law abiding gun owners slowly conceding rights, little by little, to lying bureaucrats.
What are the gun control advocates willing to “give up”?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:26 am to bamarep
Bamacuck
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:28 am to TideCPA
There is no compromising with Democrats.
The fact that the Dems FLAT OUT REJECTED a bill that would apply “red flag laws” to people who are in the GANG databases, tells you how serious they are about this. If they don’t think KNOWN gang members should have red flags, then you know “ending gun violence” is not what they’re after.
The fact that the Dems FLAT OUT REJECTED a bill that would apply “red flag laws” to people who are in the GANG databases, tells you how serious they are about this. If they don’t think KNOWN gang members should have red flags, then you know “ending gun violence” is not what they’re after.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:33 am to CheniereTiger108
Sounds a lot like Step #1 in forming a national registry, which is currently prohibited by law, but that is step #2, then we can compile the info obtained in step #1, step #3 is acting in some way since you have the registry.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:45 am to dakarx
quote:
Sounds a lot like Step #1 in forming a national registry, which is currently prohibited by law
Your SSN wasn't supposed to be an ID number, and Title IX wasn't intended to be a quota system.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 10:59 am to TaderSalad
quote:
As a law abiding citizen, I dont mind this measure.
quote:
FFL fees typically range 20-30 bucks. Now, if they start restricting FFL's and making it hard to get one, then I'll have an issue.
So you are fine with it until it makes it hard for you to get a FFL, which it undoubtedly will because that’s always the long term goal. My question to you is why would you be fine with progressively giving your rights away? Why would you choose to wait to fight for your rights until after you’ve lost them?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 11:13 am to MrLarson
quote:
Many commercial sales are conducted outside of FFLs without any background check or record-keeping requirements.
Which ones? I see this get repeated, but I never understand where it comes from. Every firearm that I've purchased at a gun show I was required to go through a background check. Are they talking about private sales at a gun show?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News