James Brady

[Hazcat]

    "It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."

    It already is!  Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!


Actually I am quite aware of current law.  Allowing sales other than in state face to face would be one of the many pro-gun rights changes to FEDERAL law.

Face to face sales are legal now, no matter where they happen.

Quote

    "01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00).  They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form."

    So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!


This fee would not apply to dealer sales - it would be the maximum that a dealer could charge for doing a NICS check on a private sale.

I was not talking about dealer sales.  You are still adding to the cost of the sale between private sellers.

Quote

    Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books.  He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay.  You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.


Really - That's interesting because there are already many states that require dealers to do NICS checks on private sales and require them on some or all private sales.  Dealers have guns on their books all the time that they DO NOT OWN.  Consignment sales are but one example as are guns left of servicing.  If this is the best argument up can come up with, it's not convincing.

Many states? How about ' a few states', not many.

As far as 'it hasn't happened' (yet), that doesn't mean it won't if we make it more possible by requiring FFL transfers on sales.

This also opens the possibility of a defacto registration (regardless of law).  I buy as few guns as possible from FFL because of the existence of that paperwork.  It is open to government review at any time for no reason and if the FFL goes out of business all that paperwork MUST be turned into the government.

Quote

    Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.

    I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!


I will ignore the name calling and simply point out that NOT ONE pro-gun rights legal scholar believes that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right.  I stay up on this stuff as much as I can, and I don't know of any - if someone does PLEASE correct me.  I really want to know.

In fact, Heller makes it clear that government may take steps to keep the mentally ill and felons from owning or possessing firearms.  There is no constitutional barrier to expanding NICS check to all sales (although my proposal would not do that).

So, we can go with your approach - and hope that in the future a Democrat majority doesn't put a background check bill written by Bloomberg on the desk of an anti-gun rights president - OR - we can write our own bill and remove the issue without all the "flypaper provisions".   That Alan Gura's position, and I agree with him.

Anyone that starts with the mindset that we must accept what is current is an imbicile,

As far as NICS "NICS data indicates that approximately 5 percent of NICS denials are appealed, and close to half of appealed denials are overturned.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5492109_national-instant-check-system.htm"

How would / could this process work with a private transaction?  Once again we have paperwork and lists ending up in government hands.

PUT THE ONUS ON THE CONTROLLERS NOT ON THE PRIVATE CITIZEN!  If the government does not want an individual to own a gun then the government should inconvenience/harass THAT INDIVIDUAL not ALL INDIVIDUALS.

[alfsauve]

And if we are in a political position of power right now, then we set the terms and compromise consists not of giving up more things, but of not repealing some of the laws... 'til later.

In other words you approach it from all the things we want and which of those can wait till later.  Not all the thing they want and how to make them palatable.

[tombogan03884]

Hey Vince,  What part of "Shall not be infringed" gives you a problem ?
How about if we start limiting voting rights ?
Or maybe we could legalize slavery under certain  "Reasonable" conditions ?
The founder's knew that law breakers, in Govt or out, could never be disarmed so they didn't waste their time trying.
They made sure that the honest citizens had the greatest possible opportunity of resisting both types.

[Hazcat]

Vince, did you get a background check before you posted (after a mandatory 3 day 'cooling off' period)?

Seems like a 'reasonable', 'common sense', posting safety measure, doesn't it?

[Timothy]

You want capitulation?  Read up on Massachusetts gun laws!  EVERYTHING IS REGISTERED!  Nothing is done to stop the bangers, only those of us who shouldn't need regulation are regulated!

Give no quarter! 

Accept no compromise! 

Stand your ground!

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

Hey Vince,  What part of "Shall not be infringed" gives you a problem ?
How about if we start limiting voting rights ?
Or maybe we could legalize slavery under certain  "Reasonable" conditions ?
The founder's knew that law breakers, in Govt or out, could never be disarmed so they didn't waste their time trying.
They made sure that the honest citizens had the greatest possible opportunity of resisting both types.

That about hits the nail on the head, Tom.

[kmitch200]

That's exactly where you are wrong.  It is the people who are not "gun people" who will decide what kind of gun laws we live with.

No it isn't. Sally Soccermom doesn't have s#!t to say about what kind of, or how many guns I own or carry.
It's lying weasels in DC that will decide what fed law is.
It's lying weasels in your state legislature that will decide what your state laws are.
If it got put up to a nationwide vote, CA, NY, OR, WA, MA and NJ would BURY the flyover states.
Hell, we can't even get every gun owner to VOTE.
 

Unfortunately, you and I do not get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means - SCOTUS does.

{{coughcoughbullshitcoughcough}}
Actually every gun, pitchfork, knife and rope owner has a say in the final product.
SCOTUS, POTUS and the rest of the DC crowd be damned.
If we didn't, we would still be paying taxes to and bowing to (no longer Great) Britain.

Get it???
That's why, THEY WANT TO OUTLAW EVERY GUN IN PRIVATE HANDS AND WON'T STOP UNTIL THEY DO!