• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

JJC

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
283
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Nastiness and platitudes in the first reply! Once you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, please post the details. There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.

There are already laws preventing the sale of firearms to unqualified people. Don't make more laws, inforce the ones already there.

It's not that difficult.

JJC
 

Carryon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
70
Location
Delavan, WI
Be thankful of the state you live in. NY just made big changes, very quickly and easily. CT, MD, and others are trying to go full steam ahead. Some are looking to go the opposite, and states will be more polarized in ownership.

WI is still looking good, and it happens by voting right and more.

Most of what passed in NY will not be a benefit, and they gave up a lot.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Reason: FFL's are different

I am against all of the background checks but accept them at FFL's because they are in a business and have to jump through other hoops.

If we added the background checks for all private sales, I could imagine that the seller would have to register in some way with the government to be allowed to perform the check, otherwise, we could all run checks on each other.

Thank you for a clear, polite and thoughtful reply. If private sellers could perform a background check quickly, easily and at no cost, would your position be different? Mr. Anmut - see how simple it is to be both nice and participatory?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Laissez-faire, Mon Frere

Private sales with out a back ground check are the safety valve insureing that the 4473 will not in most states be use as a relieable means of confiscation.

Buy and selling firearm on the free market is not only a good thing to do, but insures that after a firearm is sold a few times on the free market that firearm becomes almost untraceable.

Well, no doubt on your stance. Thanks for the input. If (when) you sell a firearm privately, do you undertake any sort of evaluation of the buyer? Do/would you require anything beyond cash in hand?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Sounds Like a Personal Problem

It is already illegal to sell or relinquish possession of firearms or ammunition to a prohibited person, so what is this going to do, make it more illegal??

I have "gifted" firearms to people close to me on more than one occassion, For instance, my GF and I live together, If I want a new firearm, and bring one home, she gets pissed off to no end. But if I buy a new firearm oh lets say around her birthday or some other gift-giving holiday, it is her gift, not my new gun. There is a huge difference there in the eyes of a woman. I still get to shoot the new gun, but it is her gift.
Another reason for this, if I ever get slapped with a charge that may prohibit me from owning firearms, Said firearm are technically not my firearms and cannot be seized.

I think the idea is to help you determine whether or not you are dealling with a prohibited person. Bona fide gifts, which are presumably to known individuals might be of less concern but the principle is the same. A GF could be a PP without a BF knowing it. Using an occasion to purchase items that are of interest primarily to themselves is a ruse that men have been using since the flintlock days. It also works with bowling balls, lawn mowers, big screen TV's and golf clubs. Unfortunately, women are rarely fooled. I am guessing that your GF either likes firearms or is a complete idiot. What if you give a firearm as a gift and your GF becomes a PP or you go your separate ways? Would you then argue that you really bought it for yourself?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Semper Paratus

I think there are many of us that are sick of having to explain this to people that want to "have a conversation about gun control." Or in your case - background checks. There isn't any conversation to be had. It's a black and white issue. However each time we allow the gun grabbers to suck us into "a conversation" we loose a little ground. And then a little more. And then a little more. Gun grabbers won't stop until they have them all and we have none.

It doesn't matter to me that you rely on the SCOTUS to define your debate. I believe the 2nd Amendment was written as a Right so it never needed any clarification. But if you want to "have a conversation" about background checks, or magazine capacities or pistol grips on rifles, the gun grabbers will oblige you and they will use use it to chip away at a God given, paid for in blood, RIGHT.

I apologize if I came off a little rough - however I am SO TIRED of having to have this conversation within our own ranks. Remember Obama's rule is to divide and conquer. While we are busy arguing about background checks he'll be forming a national registry.

Apology appreciated and accepted. You are under no obligation to respond to any post, so if the topic stresses you - just ignore. While an issue may be black & white in your mind, if you don't raise a defense - using the tools that society makes available, you may well lose. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I believe that there is a non-trivial portion of "gun grabbers" that wish to do exactly as you claim. The question is how best to beat back such efforts. Testing the arguments of the opposition is a tried and true technique used by lawyers. It helps reveal holes in one's argument and to understand the other side. Fight vigorously but fight intelligently as well. Your boss may be pond scum but you probably don't want to tell him that. You'd be right...but unemployed. SCOTUS may be confused but in the end they decide what the constitution means.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Money's Tight

One thing that has not been mentioned here is that private sale background checks would add more expense to the purchase of a gun.

You would have to go to an FFL to make a private sale. Most would charge a fee. $25, $50, $75? For each transaction.

Is this the only reason? If the BGC didn't cost you anything, what would you say?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Simple yet complex

As the resident devil's advocate, could you possibly lay out your opinion as to what you consider "reasonable gun control"?

It would take more time than I have to explain each issue. I am not one of those that contend "not be infringed" means a schizophrenic 17-year old with three felony convictions has a constitutional right to own an M-1 Abrams complete with sabot and HEAT rounds.

I am a "textualist" in the context of what the framers had in mind. A couple of points - the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to own a howitzer because there is not and never has been such a right. Artillery is a crew-served weapon and never has been "arms" for the individual. Conversely, "assault weapon" is an artifical and amorphous concept and convenient red herring.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Is this the only reason? If the BGC didn't cost you anything, what would you say?

Part of my issue was cost. The rest is about tracking. I know they aren't supposed to keep the background check data but we know how the past couple administrations have skirted the law.

I can sell a car to a guy with his drivers license suspended or revoked and that isn't a right outlined in the Constitution.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
It would take more time than I have to explain each issue. I am not one of those that contend "not be infringed" means a schizophrenic 17-year old with three felony convictions has a constitutional right to own an M-1 Abrams complete with sabot and HEAT rounds.

I was hoping you could define yourself on a few points that relate to this thread rather than bringing in tanks and howitzers. I'm sure you know it's disingenuous to represent "not be infringed" mindset with your humorous scenarios. Straw man perhaps.

If you'd simply rather not, I can respect that.
 

JJC

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
283
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Nastiness and platitudes in the first reply! Once you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, please post the details. There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.

Just how would have a background check prevented the Sandy Hook shooting???????
Lowlifes mother legally bought the weapons used in the shooting.


JJC
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
Just how would have a background check prevented the Sandy Hook shooting???????
Lowlifes mother legally bought the weapons used in the shooting.


JJC

Please don't use the W word. Do you go around calling hammers weapons? Do you go around calling hands and feet weapons?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
All firearms are weapons, but not all weapons are firearms.

Not really. It can be art, it can be a paperweight. It can also be a recreational device if I am just shooting targets. Only if I use it in a fight does it become a weapon, similar to a baseball bat or scissors.
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
Not really. It can be art, it can be a paperweight. It can also be a recreational device if I am just shooting targets. Only if I use it in a fight does it become a weapon, similar to a baseball bat or scissors.

Yup, I agree with that. Suppose I should have said, "All firearms can be weapons, but not all weapons are firearms"... or something of the sort.

Point is, in the context of JJC's comment those were weapons. Hence, no need for the "W word" warning.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Please don't use the W word. Do you go around calling hammers weapons? Do you go around calling hands and feet weapons?

My firearms are weapons. That is their primary function. They have secondary uses such as target shooting but that is to increase their effectiveness as weapons.

I'd be comfortable modifying my statement to call them defensive weapons, but I will not call a duck a swan in the name of PC.

Edit to add:

If they're not weapons why argue over the right to bear them? I'm not one to be passionate about a sportsman toy.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...hoice-of-words-when-referencing-one-s-firearm
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
What Points Interest You?

I was hoping you could define yourself on a few points that relate to this thread rather than bringing in tanks and howitzers. I'm sure you know it's disingenuous to represent "not be infringed" mindset with your humorous scenarios. Straw man perhaps.

If you'd simply rather not, I can respect that.

Ask me a specific question and I will answer. My friend I have been around long enough to know that there ARE people who think the 2A is carte blanche. Some of them post here. I was using an extreme example to say that I am not in that camp. No straw men, or tin men or...
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
It is already illegal to sell or relinquish possession of firearms or ammunition to a prohibited person, so what is this going to do, make it more illegal??....

I don't know if makes the difference, but you left out the word "knowingly," which is actually quite significant.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Um, who said that?

Just how would have a background check prevented the Sandy Hook shooting???????
Lowlifes mother legally bought the weapons used in the shooting.


JJC


I merely solicited the thoughts of others on the question of BGC. I didn't say that they would cause more shootings or less shootings or snow in Hawaii.
 
Top