Senators Strike Deal On Background Checks

[eye95]

ATF has released an electronic Form 4473. I could not find the .pdf version on their website any more.

If you think I or any other half-thinking person will believe that nobody else will see or store these serial numbers, well your assumption strains the bounds of credulity.

We aren't all geniuses, but we aren't stupid either.

TFred

We use the e4473. It is an editor that generates a pdf for printing a hard copy. It is not an electronic filing system.

Any other questions?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Neplusultra]

This is just unbelievable legislation....

I cannot believe it will pass constitutional muster. I can only hope it gets stopped in the house.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

This is just unbelievable legislation....

I cannot believe it will pass constitutional muster. I can only hope it gets stopped in the house.

Considering Case Law, it will stand muster.

 

[Grapeshot]

This is just unbelievable legislation....

I cannot believe it will pass constitutional muster. I can only hope it gets stopped in the house.

[h=1]Bill Summary & Status
113th Congress (2013 - 2014)
H.R.137

Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (83)

Latest Major Action: 1/25/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.137:[/h]

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Grapeshot,

Thanks for the link. Personally, I have no issue with what I reade in the link. A person ought to be able to transfer a firearm to family, or hand it down. A person ought not be selling a firearm to a random individual without a background check.

Thanks for the link.

 

[mpguy]

Grapeshot,

Thanks for the link. Personally, I have no issue with what I reade in the link. A person ought to be able to transfer a firearm to family, or hand it down. A person ought not be selling a firearm to a random individual without a background check.

Thanks for the link.

Why does the feds need to get involved? It should be up to the States.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[TFred]

Grapeshot,

Thanks for the link. Personally, I have no issue with what I reade in the link. A person ought to be able to transfer a firearm to family, or hand it down. A person ought not be selling a firearm to a random individual without a background check.

Thanks for the link.

Here's the point that you and all those on the "other side" are missing.

As with EVERY gun law, legislation, restriction, policy... this starts with an IDEA that most every person (including us) wants to see realized.

Then they write a law that will do absolutely nothing to accomplish that idea, and in fact, often accomplishes the exact OPPOSITE of the original idea.

First and easiest example: Gun-free zones. The IDEA is that we don't want people shooting up the folks in a certain place. Great! EVERYONE is on board with that. Then that pesky REALITY kicks in: ONLY "good guys" obey the rules. They don't bring THEIR guns. Criminals do. Slaughter. Over. And over. And over again. End result: OPPOSITE of intention.

Absolutely the same thing here. The IDEA: Let's not allow criminals to buy guns. Sure, everyone is on board with that. REALITY: Criminals DON'T use legal channels to BUY their guns anyway! I believe the vast majority of legitimate denials are for folks who didn't even realize they were a prohibited person. Hardly the mass murderer looking for his next score. And even when they do catch them, only a handful out of the reported thousands of transfer denials are prosecuted. Instead, they prefer to reserve their prosecutors' time for law-abiding citizens who happen to step on a land mine here and there.

As with EVERY other gun-restricting idea, this one will simply NOT accomplish the desired goal. None of them ever will.

ALL they ever do is further restrict and impose upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.

TFred

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Why does the feds need to get involved? It should be up to the States.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

It's a Federal issue, that's why.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Here's the point that you and all those on the "other side" are missing.

As with EVERY gun law, legislation, restriction, policy... this starts with an IDEA that most every person (including us) wants to see realized.

Then they write a law that will do absolutely nothing to accomplish that idea, and in fact, often accomplishes the exact OPPOSITE of the original idea.

First and easiest example: Gun-free zones. The IDEA is that we don't want people shooting up the folks in a certain place. Great! EVERYONE is on board with that. Then that pesky REALITY kicks in: ONLY "good guys" obey the rules. They don't bring THEIR guns. Criminals do. Slaughter. Over. And over. And over again. End result: OPPOSITE of intention.

Absolutely the same thing here. The IDEA: Let's not allow criminals to buy guns. Sure, everyone is on board with that. REALITY: Criminals DON'T use legal channels to BUY their guns anyway! I believe the vast majority of legitimate denials are for folks who didn't even realize they were a prohibited person. Hardly the mass murderer looking for his next score. And even when they do catch them, only a handful out of the reported thousands of transfer denials are prosecuted. Instead, they prefer to reserve their prosecutors' time for law-abiding citizens who happen to step on a land mine here and there.

As with EVERY other gun-restricting idea, this one will simply NOT accomplish the desired goal. None of them ever will.

ALL they ever do is further restrict and impose upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.

TFred

Keep your lines to yourself...I have no side.

I'm not for so-called Gun free Zones.

I respect your view on the matter. I disagree. There is no magic bullet, period.

As I stated: I support the UBC Bill. It has no significant impact on a law abiding citizen acquiring a firearm; the obstacle is negligible to the law abiding citizen; the Bill winding it's way through is merely an expansion upon an already existing Federal Law.

 

[mpguy]

It's a Federal issue, that's why.

I disagree with this. This is a issue that should be left up to each respected state. The federal government, needs to show some trust in the people. I mean, they want us to trust them do they not?

The issue still will not be fixed when all this is done. The control crap is nothing more than a band aid for the real problem. Mental health.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I disagree with this. This is a issue that should be left up to each respected state. The federal government, needs to show some trust in the people. I mean, they want us to trust them do they not?

The issue still will not be fixed when all this is done. The control crap is nothing more than a band aid for the real problem. Mental health.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I respect your view.

Our elected Federal Officials trust the People. I have seen no indication that they don't.

The intent is not to resolve an issue. You want to pay higher taxes for better mental health in America?--I'm down with that. You want to pay higher taxes for armed security at every school in America?--I'm down with that. You want to pay higher taxes to put a dent in Poverty in America?--I'm down with that; if you think for a second Poverty doesn't have it's place in mental health, in violence, then you need to read-up, and reconsider how much of an impact Poverty has on the violence we see every year in America.

I'm telling you this, keep cutting basic services for poor people, and you will see an increase in violent crime. Poor people are involved in most gun violence. You think Chicago is a beacon of Wealth, or a beacon of Poverty? Prime example. You cut services for poor people, you're going to end up with people doing other things in order to make ends meet. This is a complex issue, and not on Representative that I know of is talking about it.

The reason: Most Americans lack the capacity to understand complex issues.

Alternative: Pick a side, and hope for the best.

Hopefully, this Bill will see the light of day in debate, and hopefully this Bill will be on the POTUS desk, and hopefully POTUS will make his mark.

Firearm owners who support less taxes, less Government structures to deal with things like Mental Health, and Poverty, well, you get what's coming to you....enjoy your comfy trench. I have ZERO sympathy for either side of the equation, they're both bottom feeders, pandering to the lowest common denominator of society...the so-called Informed Voter.

 

[mpguy]

I respect your view.

Our elected Federal Officials trust the People. I have seen no indication that they don't.

The intent is not to resolve an issue. You want to pay higher taxes for better mental health in America?--I'm down with that. You want to pay higher taxes for armed security at every school in America?--I'm down with that. You want to pay higher taxes to put a dent in Poverty in America?--I'm down with that; if you think for a second Poverty doesn't have it's place in mental health, in violence, then you need to read-up, and reconsider how much of an impact Poverty has on the violence we see every year in America.

I'm telling you this, keep cutting basic services for poor people, and you will see an increase in violent crime. Poor people are involved in most gun violence. You think Chicago is a beacon of Wealth, or a beacon of Poverty? Prime example. You cut services for poor people, you're going to end up with people doing other things in order to make ends meet. This is a complex issue, and not on Representative that I know of is talking about it.

The reason: Most Americans lack the capacity to understand complex issues.

Alternative: Pick a side, and hope for the best.

Hopefully, this Bill will see the light of day in debate, and hopefully this Bill will be on the POTUS desk, and hopefully POTUS will make his mark.

Firearm owners who support less taxes, less Government structures to deal with things like Mental Health, and Poverty, well, you get what's coming to you....enjoy your comfy trench. I have ZERO sympathy for either side of the equation, they're both bottom feeders, pandering to the lowest common denominator of society...the so-called Informed Voter.

I don't personally believe we need to cut taxes or services. Cut the lazy people, that's been sucking the fat cow dry for years. The country as a whole, needs to stop the recklessly spending on stupid crap as well, trying to fix problems using solutions that won't work.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aknazer]

My question is, just what in the Constitution do they think gives them the authority/power to pass such laws? Even if an item passed through "interstate commerce" at some point doesn't mean that it forever is tied to interstate commerce. They also have failed to show that these laws are the "best" and "least restrictive" to complete the intended goal? Hell there's already evidence to show that these laws not only don't achieve their desired effect, but also that they infringe upon citizens rights.

But then again, that would require them to actually care about the Constitution.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

My question is, just what in the Constitution do they think gives them the authority/power to pass such laws? Even if an item passed through "interstate commerce" at some point doesn't mean that it forever is tied to interstate commerce. They also have failed to show that these laws are the "best" and "least restrictive" to complete the intended goal? Hell there's already evidence to show that these laws not only don't achieve their desired effect, but also that they infringe upon citizens rights.

But then again, that would require them to actually care about the Constitution.

There's a lot of stuff in your post.

General Welfare, Commerce Clause (regulation of)--it is forever tied to Commerce Clause until SCOTUS declares the Law not Constitutional, or Congress repeals the Law.

So, if they show the Law is the least restrictive, then you are aboard?

All Congresspeople care about the Constitution. Let's X that little myth right this second. I hear from my uber-Liberal friends that Representatives don't care about the Constitution, then I come on this wonderful forum...have for a number of years now, and I read the same crapola about Representatives not caring about the Constitution.

I suppose it depends on your particular interpretation of the Constitution.:shocker:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I don't personally believe we need to cut taxes or services. Cut the lazy people, that's been sucking the fat cow dry for years. The country as a whole, needs to stop the recklessly spending on stupid crap as well, trying to fix problems using solutions that won't work.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

By all means, please, identify the Lazy People.

Reckless spending? You mean things like our Military Industrial Complex? You mean things like our Police State? You mean things like the welfare we give to Countries like Israel?...occupation of Iraq, and Afghanistan for ten years, and the years to come that we will be paying in the blood of soldiers that come back and kill themselves, others around them...and the long term psychiatric, and medical care we are morally obligated--IMO--to give all returning soldiers...housing if need be, schooling.

You want to fix a problem in this Country, stand up to people around you, on this forum, on every forum, get into their literal and digital face when they start barking nonsense like: Freedom and Liberty, and ask them what Freedom and Liberty there are in support for a Imperialist war-mongering Government--pushed by the Right; or a Nanny State that lacks the substance to actually get people back into society, being productive members, and living their life with a shred of dignity...make no mistake, there's Dignity in working, and the vast majority of poor people want to work, some of them actually work 2 or 3 jobs and are poor.

What the point of my post here?

Well: both sides of the gun debate are using firearms to their advantage, at the expense of substantive issues.

The so-called Tragedy in Newtown?...a weekend in Chicago. There are deeper issues. You don't want your Representatives taking the easy way out, make sure they know you want them to tackle the real issues concerning violence, not made-up issues like "not enough firearms,' or "too many firearms."

 

[Ca Patriot]

The drivers of debt and spending in America are social security and medicare.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The drivers of debt and spending in America are social security and medicare.

Of course not...it's not the trillions we spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of following thru with our commitments domestically.

It's decades of bad decisions, spending trillions of dollars on building up a robust military, rather than tackling healthcare in a substantive way.

Hey, but we all have more Choices, don't we...freaking hilarious.

 

[Ca Patriot]

The main drivers of debt in America are Social Security and Medicare.

Soon another major source of debt is going to be Obamacare.

Athough the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added to the debt, they were short term expenses and one is over and the other is ending.

Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare go on forever and there is absolutely no way to pay for them...no matter how much you want to extort "the rich".

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The main drivers of debt in America are Social Security and Medicare.

Soon another major source of debt is going to be Obamacare.

Athough the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added to the debt, they were short term expenses and one is over and the other is ending.

Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare go on forever and there is absolutely no way to pay for them...no matter how much you want to extort "the rich".

Ca. Patriot, while I appreciate your views on these matters, I disagree.

I wish you well, and luck, in that tidy trench you have hunkered down in.

May you live to your full potential in Kalifornia.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Ca. Patriot, while I appreciate your views on these matters, I disagree.

I wish you well, and luck, in that tidy trench you have hunkered down in.

May you live to your full potential in Kalifornia.

You seem to be resorting to personal attacks alot.

I think the mods should reign in your violations of the forum rules and you should also take it upon yourself to debate the issues and not attack other members personally.