I don't know any law that is 100% perfect. I don't know why you think that is required. It would be a crime. If you get caught, you go to jail. How they prove it is their problem. The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.What percentage of drug sales are KNOWN??? Never mind the percentage prosecuted.
When were drugs EVER hard to get for anyone who wanted them, even though there's NO legal way to obtain most of them?
Again, not following the logic here.If you think that ANYBODY would fall for such foolishness, you clearly think that gun owners are as stupid as the girl in the Allstate commercial.
Don't tell me, you're a French model too.
Bon jour...
Deanimator said:Do you REALLY think people can be hoodwinked THIS easily?
HOW? By giving them the opening they so desperately need???
It would be FAR more accurate for you to say, "I will fight FOR them each step of the way."
The only question is whether you're intentionally serving as their stalking horse or through ignorance and lack of clear thinking. In the end it makes little difference.
joeschmoe said:This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.
How do you know when drugs are sold? When there is evidence of a crime.
Same as other laws on the books now.
By;
getting caught in the act
informant
sting operation
as part of another investigation gathering evidence
confession of guilt
etc
Ask millions of Americans in prison how they got caught.
The law under consideration in Colorado addresses these two situations in the exception section as temporary transfers where neither title or ownership is being transferred. The temorary transfer at a range must be done an an incorporated range. This could exclude municipal ranges, forest service ranges, and informal ranges on public land. Your hunting buddy example is allowed where you are hunting and both parties must have valid hunting licenses. You couldn't loan the rifle from your house or even the motel room where you are staying.What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.
No new laws on this issue are best, of course.
This is a law that would be 100% INEFFECTIVE without REGISTRATION and you know it too.I don't know any law that is 100% perfect.
I don't know what the point is of a law which has no enforcement mechanism. Of course the enforcement mechanism for this would would be... REGISTRATION.I don't know why you think that is required.
And that should be encouraged... WHY???The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.
I can't stop you from trying to dupe me.And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.
It's ESPECIALLY not "paranoia" when you can cite SPECIFIC instances of it happening.It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
Yes, I do. In my very first post on this thread I pointed out that in certain circumstances enforcement was possible. I even listed a couple of examples to make it even more plain what I meant.First you admit there are cases where it can be possible to prosecute...
No, I didn't say that and I don't understand what possible motive you could have to try to twist things around to try to make it sound like I have when it's so painfully obvious that I haven't.Then you say it's "impossible".
If it were merely repetition, you would be correct. However, I am not relying on repetition. I am relying on logic and on facts acknowledged to be true by a NIJ PhD.Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause.
Because one can use drug possession or evidence of drug use to prove a crime has taken place in the very likely case where one can not actually witness the purchase itself taking place.How do you know when drugs are sold?
NOW we're getting somewhere. Yes, they do this all the time. And then when the desired result is not obtained (which is VERY likely when weak/ineffective laws are concerned), the very weakness and ineffectiveness of the law is used as a foot in the door to take the next step, to pass a more restrictive law, to limit actions and rights even further because the initial law was too weak, too hard to enforce, etc.The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.
joeschmoe said:Another gapping hole in the argument for UBC is that all these guns did first go through an FFL and background check. Not one of these guns entered into private possesion without first going through the current background check and 4473 forms. Everyone can be traced back to the FFL they came from. The gun can be traced from birth, distribution to the FFL who sold it to the individual who's info stays on file.
There is no "gun show loophole".
And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.
Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.
Folks need to quit talking about compromise... the left is willing to give up nothing. The only people who are loosing in these hypothetical talks are law abiding citizens. There is nothing in the OP's post that would have impacted Sandy Hook at at all.
Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.
So now a criminal is caught with a firearm the ATF traces back to you. The crook is trying to save his tail so he says he will testify you gave it to him without a background check.
Exactly. Once it's a law even a weak one the president can use executive orders to 'enforce' it. And of course what everyone else has said about it not working without registration.The problem is that if the get this law passed, then they will be saying in a few month what a LARGE percentage of guns mad: nonsense statistics mind you) are changing hands without checks, maybe some other mass shooting occurs then BOOM executive order requiring registration of all firearms in compliance with law XYZ (because the Pres has the power to enforce the law right?) now we all have to register our stuff. By the time this is over turned by the supreme court (many cases take years to even be heard) they have confiscated all our guns. I said earlier "Let them pass it", I wholeheartedly take that back now.
What if it's a long gun and you transferred it the next state over?
Actually long guns can be transferred interstate in private sales. I've spent a lot of time trying to find out the legalities of this and finally with my LGS we asked an ATF agent and he said they are legal it's just not widely known. I spent hours looking over the law book on that particular law and finally after hearing it straight from the horse's mouth it's good enough for me. I know you shouldn't just take the word of someone in authority but it's pretty much accepted as fact around here.
Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]