Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

[RPZ]

Should there be background checks for those wishing to exercise their first amendment rights also? It has been suggested before.
I prefer a free society with its inherent risks to the security of a police state.

I think there should be background checks and routine frequent drug testing of Presidential candidates, their appointees .... And Congressmen.

 

[CapnMac]

There are systems in place to get your rights restored right?

In law, yes. In practice, no.
B(AT)FE has been specifically defunded for the purpose of restoring, federally, anyone's gun owning rights on felony (or misdemeanor DV) conviction.

There is some confusion as about 17 states do have some form of post-conviction rights restoration, with widely inconsistent and varying degrees aof applicability (functionally, don't bother unless you are in the 5%).

So, yes, if you were convicted of carrying a piece of sugarcane longer than 25mm across certain portions of the Rio Grande, or transporting a live plant without a permit across the city of Texarcana, or any one of over 500 statutes, and you are hosed. Do not forget that DV misdemeanors are all disqualifying, too.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

If I have to tell you why a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun we're never going to find common ground. You should really take some time to check out recidivism rates. We don't live in a world where everyone that should be in jail is, it's a revolving door, until we fix our judicial system I'll stick with supporting background checks. Straw purchases are a huge way to get a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. Why? Because after they buy it and give it to their felon friend if they live in a state with no restrictions on private sales there is no recourse to punish them. You aren't going to prove they knowingly gave it to a felon.

I think a felon who has served his time, should be allowed to go through a review process, perhaps 5 years after his release. If he's clean and on the straight and narrow, he should be allowed to purchase a gun legally. Fact is, a felon will get a gun illegally if he really wants one. I'd rather give him an incentive to earn his 2nd amendment rights back, if he so desires.

 

[Alec]

I may still sell it to my buddy, but now there is verifiable proof I sold him the gun without going through the proper procedure. So if he is caught with it, he's in trouble and so am I.

I understand where you're coming from with this argument, but a UBC does not provide verifiable proof that someone sold a felon a gun without going through the proper procedure. It only provides verifiable proof that they sold a gun WITH the proper procedure, and even then only when the record is present. Records are not infallible; would you want the absence of a file on a computer somewhere to be the cause of you getting thrown in jail? Even if you did no wrong, it shifts the burden of proof to you as the seller if there is ever a question of the sale's validity.

And even if you personally stored a record of a UBC on a transfer but the state/feds do not have it, who is a jury to believe? What did the record consist of? A confirmation number that leads nowhere? A form letter sent to you from the ATF (added cost to implement and burden of record storage on the seller)?

Would you agree that "losing" someone's file on a transfer is an easy way to put them away if they were to become inconvenient?

 

[RPRNY]

We already have background checks, this would simply create more of them. Would it slow the system down? Sure if they didn't increase personnel, but it's already law they can't take more than 72 hours to make a decision.

This is exactly the creeping anti-civil rights line of the Democratic Party. Ever more burdensome restrictions in the name of "common sense". I will not suggest that you are acting from the same motive but it has the same effect.

Again, since the proposed infringement, which entails cost , administrative burden, and increased regulatory control of one's life will not, by your own admission, diminish crime or increase safety for society in any substantial way, the burden of the infringement outweighs the alleged benefits to society. Therefore, it cannot be justified.

It doesn't matter that it's only a "little" inconvenient . As an unjustified infringement, it must go. There have to be lines in the sand, vigorously defended against a creeping bureaucracy and government control, lest we, like the apocryphal frog, suddenly wonder why the water in this pan is so damn hot.

 

[DeepSouth]

Very interesting view. Don't try to stop straw purchases otherwise they will steal more? Can't say I've ever heard that one before.

And you still haven't heard it, all I'm saying is if your right (and again I don't believe you are) the logical outcome of your ideas will result in more gun thefts, and criminals will still have guns.... So you effectively accomplished absolutely nothing, well nothing that will curb crime in fact it would likely increase it.

 

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
Seriously, if you want to pretend it doesn't happen daily that's fine

I never said it didn't happen every day.

Stick to the argument you started.

You asserted that "straw purchasers" couldn't be convicted. I just demonstrated in about ten lines of testimony how easily it can be done. Whether or not the crime happens frequently has no relationship to whether or not it is possible to convict those who are apprehended.

Please post your assertion in the Legal section and let the attorneys who deal with these matters on a daily basis explain to you how the law is actually administered.

 

[hdwhit]

RPZ wrote:
It is an infringement, because any FREE man has a right to be armed.

No.

We have felons who have served their sentence who walk about as free men, but they should not be armed

 

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
...as I mentioned in my very first post in the thread I knew my position was unfavorable to say the least here,

I have no problem with minority positions. What I have a problem with is your - at best - incomplete understanding of how firearms laws work and how they are administered by the ATF and the DOJ.

 

[hdwhit]

drunkenpoacher wrote:
Should there be background checks for those wishing to exercise their first amendment rights also?

This is a meaningless question as the Supreme Court has already ruled on both First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights and found that in both cases, reasonable restrictions by state and local governments ARE permitted. The only difference is the extent of regulation that has been permitted.

 

[hdwhit]

RPZ wrote:
And it's that way for a reason; change agents and their SCOTUS appointees. That's called a political coup d'etat, a subversion that demands counter action. Otherwise we have been conquered.

What conquest?

President Trump just appointed a justice to the Supreme Court every bit as conservative as the one he replaced. What "change agents" and what "SCOTUS appointees" are you talking about? Pretending to find "subversion" in such a situation undermines those who watch for true subversion of our rights.

 

[barnbwt]

"And even if you personally stored a record of a UBC on a transfer but the state/feds do not have it, who is a jury to believe? What did the record consist of? A confirmation number that leads nowhere? A form letter sent to you from the ATF (added cost to implement and burden of record storage on the seller)?"
Careful, you're liable to blow the NFA tax registries' cover with that line of questioning

The other angle is the insertion of false data into such a registry is a *very* disturbing but realistic rabbit hole...

 

[armoredman]

Why are our prisons and jails full? Because of the stupid and poorly executed "war on drugs". At the same time that we are giving a pass to murderers and rapists we are locking up drug users and others who have not done any harm to society

I love hearing this one...over and over and over again. The most common one is "Only weed heads are getting thrown in the slammer, if we let all the innocent stoners out, we can close half the prisons!"
Demonstrably false, at least in my home state of Arizona. Here, look yourself;

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/CAG/2017/cagmar17.pdf

Check where it says drug conviction, marijuana only....a huge, enormous, massive population of...223. That's .05% of our entire population. All drug possession equals 7.7% of our prison population. Far, far more are in for drug SALES...which is a criminal act that destroys families. You want to smoke your weed? I don't care, just don't toke and drive. Want to sell your filth to kids? I will welcome you into our wonderful exclusive gated community we call prison.

We give a pass to murderers and rapists?

Murderers - 3,173, including manslaughter, which is over 14 times the number of weed heads in prison, and almost equal to total drug possession charges.

Rapists? Lets include all sex offenses to be fair, 5,027. Yep, we're just letting those horrible people walk away...yep.

Our recidivism rate was, as of this report, approximately 49%, not great by any means, but not what most people think - an inmate is an inmate for LIFE!!!!! No, they aren't - over 17,000 were released so far this year alone. Can't stop that bus - 96% of ALL inmates will be released eventually. 31% are in for 6 months or less, right now.

As stated before, Congress defunded ASTFE from restoring 2A rights to released felons. Personally I am for restoration of rights to those who can successfully show they have lived a clean life, and I know more felons that most of the people on the board have ever seen.
Background checks are, in my mind, an infringement on my right as it presupposes I will break the law. I love living in Free AZ which wisely stays out of peoples private lives and in fact has passed several laws this legislative session to prevent exactly these laws from interfering with our citizens 2A and Section 26, ( of the AZ Constitution), rights. If UBCs were such a panacea, California would be heaven. Because criminals break the law routinely, (and gun crimes are pled away VERY often - we have but 1,864 inmates serving for weapons violations), I do believe this is a very bad idea.
Thank you for your time.

 

[Crawdad1]

They pride themselves on their knowledge of American gun laws then they should of read in there someplace our ability to pack a whole lot of firepower and our willingness to use it to defend ourselves. That should give them a clue that it won't be so easy for them over here.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

This is a meaningless question as the Supreme Court has already ruled on both First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights and found that in both cases, reasonable restrictions by state and local governments ARE permitted. The only difference is the extent of regulation that has been permitted.

Is there anyone that thinks people in black robes never make bad decisions?

 

[Curator]

If you read the article completely, you will also note the author claims one can leave the gun show with a "fully automatic assault rifle without a background check." While it is true that some gun shows allow for "private sales." without a formal background check, the seller is required to determine the age of the buyer and whether he or she is a legal resident in that State. That would eliminate alien terrorists, and legal residents would have options other than gun shows regardless. Were the "instant backgound check" system be easily available to anyone contemplating selling a firearm to someone not known personally, I would be in favor of it. However when it is misused like several States are doing now, where it is illegal to let someone shoot your rifle at a gun range, or give/sell a firearm to your brother or a fiend you have known for 20 years without going to a FFL and paying a transfer fee, I am adamantly opposed.

 

[Hanzo581]

Holy cow do you guys ever sleep?

I'll ask this. I see a large amount of ads for private FTF sales that ask for you to bring your CCW with you, and then also want a bill of sale and in some cases a copy of your ID. I am going to assume when you guys personally sell a firearm you only ask for the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the law. Would that be correct?

 

[RPZ]

No.

We have felons who have served their sentence who walk about as free men, but they should not be armed

Prior to the 1960s there was no such class of people and it wasn't a problem. Its not a problem now, except to impose checks and hoops for everyone else. Nothing has changed, except to create a 2nd class of citizen with not much else to lose.

 

[sota]

While I find that article rife with misinformation, and I know people hate my opinion on this here, I do believe private sales should require background checks.

If you can 100% guarantee .gov will NEVER EVER ABUSE the data collected by the service, and you made background checks free, reliable, and quick (20 minutes or less) then MAYBE you could get people on board with it.

Otherwise... NO.

 

[jdc1244]

No one has ever presented background checks as a ‘panacea’ to the problem of criminals gaining access to firearms; to say that criminals are still able obtain guns despite background checks renders background checks ‘useless’ fails as a strawman fallacy.

Background checks function successfully and as intended.

That prohibited persons are able to engage in firearms transactions not subject to background checks – such as face-to-face intrastate sales – is not ‘justification’ to repeal background check laws.

 

[Sistema1927]

No.

We have felons who have served their sentence who walk about as free men, but they should not be armed

Which points out that our justice system is a mess. If they are free to walk among us then they should have all of their rights intact. If we cannot trust them to be free, due to their crimes, then they should be locked up or otherwise taken out of circulation.

 

[Sistema1927]

I love hearing this one...over and over and over again. The most common one is "Only weed heads are getting thrown in the slammer, if we let all the innocent stoners out, we can close half the prisons!"
Demonstrably false, at least in my home state of Arizona. Here, look yourself;

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/CAG/2017/cagmar17.pdf

Check where it says drug conviction, marijuana only....a huge, enormous, massive population of...223. That's .05% of our entire population. All drug possession equals 7.7% of our prison population. Far, far more are in for drug SALES...which is a criminal act that destroys families. You want to smoke your weed? I don't care, just don't toke and drive. Want to sell your filth to kids? I will welcome you into our wonderful exclusive gated community we call prison.

We give a pass to murderers and rapists?

Murderers - 3,173, including manslaughter, which is over 14 times the number of weed heads in prison, and almost equal to total drug possession charges.

Rapists? Lets include all sex offenses to be fair, 5,027. Yep, we're just letting those horrible people walk away...yep.

Our recidivism rate was, as of this report, approximately 49%, not great by any means, but not what most people think - an inmate is an inmate for LIFE!!!!! No, they aren't - over 17,000 were released so far this year alone. Can't stop that bus - 96% of ALL inmates will be released eventually. 31% are in for 6 months or less, right now.

As stated before, Congress defunded ASTFE from restoring 2A rights to released felons. Personally I am for restoration of rights to those who can successfully show they have lived a clean life, and I know more felons that most of the people on the board have ever seen.
Background checks are, in my mind, an infringement on my right as it presupposes I will break the law. I love living in Free AZ which wisely stays out of peoples private lives and in fact has passed several laws this legislative session to prevent exactly these laws from interfering with our citizens 2A and Section 26, ( of the AZ Constitution), rights. If UBCs were such a panacea, California would be heaven. Because criminals break the law routinely, (and gun crimes are pled away VERY often - we have but 1,864 inmates serving for weapons violations), I do believe this is a very bad idea.
Thank you for your time.

Armoredman, I fully appreciate your remarks, but recognize that you are living in Arizona. I would expect that the stats from eastern states or from your neighbor to the west, are markedly different. I bet that there are appreciable differences even between free Arizona and your liberal neighbor to the east, New Mexico.

 

[Bad Ninja]

If I have to tell you why a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun we're never going to find common ground. You should really take some time to check out recidivism rates. We don't live in a world where everyone that should be in jail is, it's a revolving door, until we fix our judicial system I'll stick with supporting background checks. Straw purchases are a huge way to get a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. Why? Because after they buy it and give it to their felon friend if they live in a state with no restrictions on private sales there is no recourse to punish them. You aren't going to prove they knowingly gave it to a felon.

You mean "felons" that have already served time and repayed their debt to society?
Yes, do tell.



Shall not be infringed.
If they are still such an obvious danger why are they allowed out in the first place?


The "fail" in this false logic doesnt lie with the almighty DROS.

 

[jdc1244]

Should there be background checks for those wishing to exercise their first amendment rights also? It has been suggested before.

I prefer a free society with its inherent risks to the security of a police state.

The first paragraph fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The second paragraph fails as a false dilemma fallacy, in addition to being baseless demagoguery.

A free society can be realized with necessary, proper, and Constitutional restrictions on citizens’ rights – rights that are neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited.’

Indeed, necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures help ensure a free society.

 

[Leanwolf]

The Islamists are tied to the narco trafficking cartels. They don't need gun shows. They can get any thing they want, and much more than you will see at a gun show. ...."

You're 100% correct. Islamic terrorists and the criminal narco cartels have ZERO problems buying all the guns they need illegally.

Here is a TINY stash confiscated from just one cartel house. Nothing more than a drop in the bucket. The Islamic terrorists have ties with the cartels and the money to buy whatever guns they want. Fully automatic guns and ammo are smuggled into Central America and Mexico, no matter the "price of doing business." Anything can be smuggled across the U.S. borders by evil people.



Does any sane person actually believe terrorists can not buy what they want?

L.W.