Criminalizing Private Gun Sales

[xsubsailor]

 I think I actually like this idea. Even if it gets passed in the House, the Senate won't pass it and if by some wild chance it does squeak through it will get vetoed by Trump.

About the only thing that I can see coming out of it is alienating every gun owner in the country both Democrat and Republican.

House Democrats plan to introduce legislation criminalizing private gun sales once the new Congress is in session.

Mother Jones reports that Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) met with gun control groups that included the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Center for American Progress, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Gabby Giffords’ group. He asked them what they wanted, and a bill to criminalize private gun sales was on their wish list.

So Thompson will sponsor legislation requiring a background check before someone may buy a gun from his neighbor, a co-worker to get a background check before buying a gun from a co-worker, and so forth. The bill will go so far as to require a son to get a background check before a father can give him a gun as a gift.

Private gun sales are legal and have been an American tradition since 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified.

Ironically, a ban on private sales would not have stopped a single mass shooting witnessed to this point in the 21st century because nearly every mass shooter acquires his guns at retail via a background check. The exceptions to the rule are the mass shooters who steal their guns.

While the Democrats’ gun control push will not prevent mass shootings, it will criminalize a grandfather for passing his goose gun to his grandson without government permission. It will also criminalize a mother who gives her college-age daughter a revolver for self-defense without first getting government permission.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/05/house-democrats-plan-push-criminalize-private-gun-sales/

[GlockSpock]

Vetoed by Trump? Really?

Lets see...Republican House? Check. Republican Senate? Check.

Nobody "had" to do anything, but Trump volunteered the banning of bump stocks. Why?

If it were to get passed the House and Senate, I think Trump would sign it in a heartbeat if he thought he'd gain a friend over it.

[mikegideon]

I guess I am anti-gun because I don’t own a bump stock. Apples and oranges. 

[GlockSpock]

4 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I guess I am anti-gun because I don’t own a bump stock. Apples and oranges. 

No, you'd be anti-gun if you wanted/supported banning bump stocks.

Just like I'm not anti-gun because I don't want to ban revolvers, although I own none.

[GlockSpock]

And, in my opinion, I think more people than we care to admit would jump on board stricter private gun sales.

Heck, the media has already done a really, really good job convincing a lot of people that private gun sales are already illegal intrastate. I've met so many friends and coworkers that are baffled by the fact I've bought and sold guns without going to a gun dealer.

[DaveTN]

6 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

No, you'd be anti-gun if you wanted/supported banning bump stocks.

Just like I'm not anti-gun because I don't want to ban revolvers, although I own none.

Is a revolver a way to skirt the law? Of course not… apples and oranges. A bump stock violates the law….. you want that changed? Change the law to include being able to own automatic weapons.

It’s not that I don’t care because I don’t own one. I just see it as some azzhat occupying a desk at the ATF that didn’t catch it when it was submitted.

4 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

And, in my opinion, I think more people than we care to admit would jump on board stricter private gun sales.

I don’t support background checks at all because they do nothing. But yes, if requiring background checks on private sales were put on the ballot it would pass by a landslide....even in this state.

[GlockSpock]

1 minute ago, DaveTN said:

Is a revolver a way to skirt the law? Of course not… apples and oranges. A bump stock violates the law….. you want that changed? Change the law to include being able to own automatic weapons.

It’s not that I don’t care because I don’t own one. I just see it as some azzhat occupying a desk at the ATF that didn’t catch it when it was submitted.

I don’t support background checks at all because they do nothing. But yes, if requiring background checks on private sales were put on the ballot it would pass by a landslide....even in this state.

Does a bump-fire stock alter the firing mechanism to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger? Because if it does, it's a machine-gun. If it doesn't...well:)

I agree that it violates the spirit of the law. But if something doesn't violate the letter of the law, then in my opinion it is legal.

But...then again...shoelaces are machine-guns too so who knows anymore.

[DaveTN]

9 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Does a bump-fire stock alter the firing mechanism to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger? Because if it does, it's a machine-gun. If it doesn't...well:)

I agree that it violates the spirit of the law. But if something doesn't violate the letter of the law, then in my opinion it is legal.

But...then again...shoelaces are machine-guns too so who knows anymore.

Were shoe laces and belt loops designed to make a semi-auto rifle into a full auto rate of fire? Nope. It’s that whole apples and oranges thing again.

All anyone will do by fighting this is hose us on aftermarket triggers. That crazy azz mental case knocked out that window and unloaded at near machine gun rate of fire. The intent of the law was to make any device that allowed that to happen to be illegal.

Is a DA and Judge bound by some clown in an ATF office writing a letter? That’s not an argument that’s a question….for anyone that knows the answer.

Edited December 5, 2018 by DaveTN

[GlockSpock]

5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Were shoe laces and belt loops designed to make a semi-auto rifle into a full auto rate of fire? Nope. It’s that whole apples and oranges thing again.

All anyone will do by fighting this is hose us on aftermarket triggers. That crazy azz mental case knocked out that window and unloaded at near machine gun rate of fire. The intent of the law was to make any device that allowed that to happen to be illegal.

Is a DA and Judge bound by some clown in an ATF office writing a letter? That’s not an argument that’s a question….for anyone that knows the answer.

No, it is relevant in my opinion. The ATF declared illegal the use of a shoestring to increase the rate of fire.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

In a roundabout way, they did the same thing with bumpstocks.

I am personally against both of these measures. 

The term ‘‘machinegun’’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts de- signed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combina- tion of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleE-chap53.pdf

In my observation and interpretation, a firearm with a bumpstockj attached does not fire more than one shot per function of the trigger. What you have is a trigger functioning very quickly. Sorry, but in my opinion it is clear. Letter vs spirit. They should be legal based on letter of the law. Don't like that? Change the law! 

[E4 No More]

The irony here is that the asshat that used the bump stock to kill so many people had the ability to acquire a licensed auto since he had the money and no criminal background.

Bump stocks do violate the intent of the law and I'd be willing to sacrifice them if they removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA list. Throw them a bone and take the steak!

[Omega]

5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Were shoe laces and belt loops designed to make a semi-auto rifle into a full auto rate of fire? Nope. It’s that whole apples and oranges thing again.

All anyone will do by fighting this is hose us on aftermarket triggers. That crazy azz mental case knocked out that window and unloaded at near machine gun rate of fire. The intent of the law was to make any device that allowed that to happen to be illegal.

Is a DA and Judge bound by some clown in an ATF office writing a letter? That’s not an argument that’s a question….for anyone that knows the answer.

The shoestring in question was designed to mimic auto fire. It could have been any string, but they used a shoestring in the submitted request.  The previous bumpstock had a spring, which was deemed mechanical so they changed their minds, the current one does not.  I have used a sling to bumpfire a weapon, way back before any such product existed.  But it was redundant since it had a selector switch to do it the right way.  The way I see it, bumpfire is a method, not a product, 

 

3 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

The irony here is that the asshat that used the bump stock to kill so many people had the ability to acquire a licensed auto since he had the money and no criminal background.

Bump stocks do violate the intent of the law and I'd be willing to sacrifice them if they removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA list. Throw them a bone and take the steak!

The problem is, they will never give those taxes up.

[E4 No More]

16 minutes ago, Omega said:

The problem is, they will never give those taxes up.

I disagree. The $200 FU tax is a small drop in the bucket.

[Whisper]

26 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

I disagree. The $200 FU tax is a small drop in the bucket.

You are right that the $200 tax is a small drop in the bucket, but Omega is right that they will never give it up.  This was never intended to provide a source of revenue -- it was intended only to harass gun owners.   As long as it performs that function, the authoritarians will protect and preserve it.  They don't care about the money.  They care about the harassment.

[Omega]

2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

I disagree. The $200 FU tax is a small drop in the bucket.

Now, just wait until they decide to "adjust" for inflation! 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

The only way this works is to have a national registry and track who owns what. That is it. Otherwise how would anyone know who is SUPPOSED to have what and be able to enforce it if you gave or sold something to someone without doing the check ? Otherwise there is no mechanism to know if someone sold something to someone without doing a check.  

We need to make it known that if you support Universal background checks you are supporting universal gun registration...period.  

I fear at some point one monkey who has had enough is going to stand up and say "No" and others will join him all hell will break loose...

 

 

(For those not tracking that "monkey" reference.... that is what Cornelius (in Escape From the Planet of the Apes (IIRC) ) said was how the Simian revolution started...one day one monkey (Ceasar) had enough of being told what to do by humans and stood up and said "NO" when ordered to do something..... 

[DWARREN123]

In our society of today and the future gun control will get stricter and more stupid as time goes on. We can only stop it by changing our society.

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, DWARREN123 said:

In our society of today and the future gun control will get stricter and more stupid as time goes on. We can only stop it by changing our society.

Or by changing our leadership.  

[sigmtnman]

To "Republic" correctly requires a fair amount of homogeneity with regard to beliefs. The Founding Fathers knew this. We passed that point quite awhile ago and continue to dilute(and delude) our society. We are close to the precipice, where the slippery slope meets the whirlpool.

Edited December 6, 2018 by sigmtnman

[xsubsailor]

Chip....chip.....chip. Gun  ownership         

NJ State Police Refuse to Rule Out House-to-House Enforcement of High Capacity Magazine Ban

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/nj-state-police-refuse-to-rule-out-house-to-house-enforcement-of-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, xsubsailor said:

Chip....chip.....chip. Gun  ownership         

NJ State Police Refuse to Rule Out House-to-House Enforcement of High Capacity Magazine Ban

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/nj-state-police-refuse-to-rule-out-house-to-house-enforcement-of-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

 Any bets on what the dead cop to dead citizen ratio will be? 

[mikegideon]

19 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 Any bets on what the dead cop to dead citizen ratio will be? 

That depends somewhat on which house. If it ever goes all the way hot, there won't be enough cops.

[Erik88]

12 hours ago, xsubsailor said:

Chip....chip.....chip. Gun  ownership         

NJ State Police Refuse to Rule Out House-to-House Enforcement of High Capacity Magazine Ban

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/nj-state-police-refuse-to-rule-out-house-to-house-enforcement-of-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

I'm getting really tired of the people saying "no one is coming for your guns."

My patience for that is wearing thin.

This grabber bingo is too accurate.

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

I'm getting really tired of the people saying "no one is coming for your guns."

My patience for that is wearing thin.

This grabber bingo is too accurate.

They are going to keep pushing until there is a fight somewhere. Simple fact is, we ALLOW them to govern us. They only have enough force to maintain that balance. That won't change until every man in this country grows a vagina. I won't live to see that.

[E4 No More]

2 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

They are going to keep pushing until there is a fight somewhere. Simple fact is, we ALLOW them to govern us. They only have enough force to maintain that balance. That won't change until every man in this country grows a vagina. I won't live to see that.

No one wants to see you with a vagina! 

[mikegideon]

1 minute ago, SWJewellTN said:

No one wants to see you with a vagina! 

Already got way too much invested in what I was born with.