Please explain it to this layman (Me)

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Ok so I skimmed through the sticky of the White House Proposal but am still stuck. This is my understanding thus far, the EOs he signed today didn't really have any gun control issues directly. He will be going though congress (making a proposal) to get the AWB and 10 round limit back. Is that correct? If not what and where did I miss it? In the event that he DOESN'T go through congress, do you think that Steve Stockman of TX will keep his word on filing articles of impeachment? If he DOES go through congress, what do you think the chances of anything passing are? Sorry, I have just never had to keep up with this stuff before, wasn't 21 until 2005 so the old ban didn't directly affect me as a buyer (but I surely remember my dad griping about it way back in the 90s though lol).

 

So anything you can explain to me like I was a kid would be greatly appreciated! Seriously...like a kid. lol

[Oh Shoot]

Ok so I skimmed through the sticky of the White House Proposal but am still stuck. This is my understanding thus far, the EOs he signed today didn't really have any gun control issues directly. He will be going though congress (making a proposal) to get the AWB and 10 round limit back. Is that correct?

 

Your overview is correct. Although there's probably any number of surprises in how those EO's may be implemented.

 

In the event that he DOESN'T go through congress, do you think that Steve Stockman of TX will keep his word on filing articles of impeachment?

 

Impeachment likely has zero chance, regardless of what he does as far as gun issues is concerned.

 

If he DOES go through congress, what do you think the chances of anything passing are?

 

I think public pressure will make the House cave to enacting the end to private sales. Beyond that, I think the chances are well less than 50/50 of anything else major passing, this time around.

 

- OS

Edited January 17, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Steelharp]

Today was pomp, circumstance, and "feel good" :poop: . It was all a ruse to see how WE would be overreacting to what we THOUGHT was coming. He made sure of OUR weaknesses.

 

He isn't stupid; he's a player. A seasoned, Chi-town player.

[RED333]

Keep the pressure on you Reps, remind them we dont need the UN treaty eather.

[runco]

I honestly didn't see any real substance. Lot of recommendations, studies and lip service enforcing current laws.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Softening everyone up for the next round. I doubt he can even get private sales through the House if we put the heat on.

There are more important issues to be tended to than liberal crying: liberal spending.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Well thank you very much OS, and everyone else. That pretty much clears up what I was confused on. Now off to write, email, fax, call and generally harass my rep about voting any new gun laws down! :D

[gregintenn]

Here's my take on it:

 

There was all this buildup and hoopla concerning his introducing these executive actions. This caused some people to act a fool in defiance of something they hadn't seen yet. I don't think he quite got the reaction he was hoping for, but some, like the NRA, made public statements ahead of the announcement. People showing a lot of outrage, and then when this was unveiled and nothing was in it, these people look like fools and are now irrevelent in fighting anything else.

 

I do expect this wasn't the end, but just the beginning. Obama is pretty good at baiting other people into making fools of themselves. Remember the birth certificate?

[Guest CigarGuy]

I'm always amazed with these things.  One of the "solutions" always has to do with, no matter how said, enforcing EXISTING laws.  Ya' think?!

It's like when politicians talk about spending cuts with the "we are going to cut waste and fraud".  Really? Oh, yippee.  Finally.

[Worriedman]

I think public pressure will make the House cave to enacting the end to private sales. Beyond that, I think the chances are well less than 50/50 of anything else major passing, this time around.

 

- OS

I think that if we as a Nation, allow the usurpation of our ability to barter or sell our legally owned firearms sans Big Brother's intervention, we are capitulating the entire Republic. In TN we are already by law required to make sure that the end receiver is not a criminal.  Enforce that law.  Make the background check system available to the People without having to report it.

 

The government works for us, we pay the bills, allow us to call the TICS (or whatever acronym is correct) system and check out any individual without having to report the request to anybody.  Charge me the $10.00, it is my system, I own it.  I can pay for my driver's license on line, why not allow me to use the background system on line?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest bkelm18]

In TN we are already by law required to make sure that the end receiver is not a criminal.

 

No we're not. The law states that it is an offense to knowingly and intentionally sell, loan, or gift a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess a firearm. You don't have to verify they are not a criminal, just have no reason to believe that they are.

Edited January 17, 2013 by bkelm18

[Worriedman]

No we're not. The law states that it is an offense to knowingly and intentionally sell, loan, or gift a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess a firearm. You don't have to verify they are not a criminal, just have no reason to believe that they are.

Not quite, here is the actual wording:

 

39-17-1303.  Unlawful sale, loan or gift of firearm.

 (a) A person commits an offense who:
 

(3) Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence violates the provisions of § 39-17-1316.


 

Depends on what the Prosecutor may deign as reckless or negligent.

[JayC]

TICS is unconstitutional, the only thing we need to be doing with it, is getting rid of it.

 

I think that if we as a Nation, allow the usurpation of our ability to barter or sell our legally owned firearms sans Big Brother's intervention, we are capitulating the entire Republic. In TN we are already by law required to make sure that the end receiver is not a criminal.  Enforce that law.  Make the background check system available to the People without having to report it.

 

The government works for us, we pay the bills, allow us to call the TICS (or whatever acronym is correct) system and check out any individual without having to report the request to anybody.  Charge me the $10.00, it is my system, I own it.  I can pay for my driver's license on line, why not allow me to use the background system on line?

 

 

[Guest bkelm18]

Not quite, here is the actual wording:

 

Depends on what the Prosecutor may deign as reckless or negligent.

 

Same difference. You aren't required by law to know whether they are a criminal or not. Just have no knowledge that they are. If it were required by law, how would you be certain? A background check? Isn't that the whole purpose of them closing the "loophole"?

[Worriedman]

Same difference. You aren't required by law to know whether they are a criminal or not. Just have no knowledge that they are. If it were required by law, how would you be certain? A background check? Isn't that the whole purpose of them closing the "loophole"?

We see this totally differently. To sell a firearm to someone that I have not vetted is "reckless".  When the State added that wording to the TCA code, I took it as a charge that I was obligated to fulfill.

 

Losing the ability to privately sell or trade with  someone I know to be of sound character, giving in to Federal registration is the end of Liberty as far as I am concerned.

 

I know I am just one person, but, I get to have that opinion.

 

If we allow this without fighting it to the bitter end, we are ruined.

 

A background check? Isn't that the whole purpose of them closing the "loophole"?

No, registration and confiscation is the purpose.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I'm with Worriedman and even a bit beyond him. If they made TICS phone service available to everyone and charged me 10 bucks on a credit card I would use it when privately selling a firearm to someone I don't REALLY know, with or without a requirement to do so, just to keep them out of the hands of criminals. As for the law right now, I also believe that reckless etc would be difficult to prove atm. Just not having any knowledge of them having any reason that would prevent them from owning a firearm is good enough, to an extent...like just using common sense on judging their character during a sale. Like no orange jumpsuits or obvious gang or jailhouse tattoos. Then again I also keep records (copy of drivers licence and firearms SN) of any firearms I sell privately. But in the event i sold to a felon, I don't think they could make reckless etc stick. Don't even think they would try when I cooperated and gave them information I am not even required to have.

[TGO David]

TICS is unconstitutional, the only thing we need to be doing with it, is getting rid of it.

 

You must lead a very stressed-out existence because I swear your posts indicate that you see a boogey-man under every bed.

 

 

[mav]

I like the idea of everyone having access to TICS.  I don't do many transactions with individuals, but I would use the service if it was made available.  It would certainly help law-abiding gun owners from selling to someone who couldn't legally obtain a firearm.

 

Has an idea like this ever been proposed before the Assembly?

[45guy]

I am not sure an individual being able to do background checks is the answer. I know people that work at busy gun stores and they tell me the system is not that great. Many are rejected by mistake and the buyer then has to go through a disputing process to get his name cleared. I also know someone that transposed his SS # and got approved. It may stop some people from buying directly. But if someone is determined to buy a gun they will find a way.

Edited January 21, 2013 by 45guy

[JayC]

Not really...  I may very well be tilting at windmills ;)

 

But it's clear that the TN state constitution prohibits the legislature from regulating the purchasing of firearms, yet we put up with this silly money grab from the state that we shouldn't have to...  At the facts are TICS has a higher false positive rate than the national system - which has a very high false positive rate to begin with.

 

So we must pay $10 for a background check the legislature isn't allowed to create, which is slower, and more error prone...  and for some reason I can't understand why the gun culture in TN is just happy to put up with all of this?

 

So, in hopes of getting more people to think critically that TICS is a bad thing that should be done away with, I will continue to tilt at windmills :)

 

You must lead a very stressed-out existence because I swear your posts indicate that you see a boogey-man under every bed.

 

 

[TGO David]

Why not post the facts substantiating your opinion that TICS is unconstitutional rather than just claiming it is?   If you're right, you're right.

[1gewehr]

Facts are what matter.  Have background checks like NICS and TICS stopped criminals from getting firearms?  If there is a significant reduction in criminals getting firearms, then you can point to some success.  Unfortunately, the evidence points the other way.  NICS and TICS have not stopped criminals from getting firearms.  Since they do not accomplish their stated goal, why keep them?

 

Liberals love to make the excuse that a program is failing because it is not expansive enough.  In other words, the reason background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns is because all sales are not legally required to have a check done.  That's absurd.  Criminals will still use straw-man purchasers, theft, and the black market to get guns.

 

This is just more feel-good bullcr@p.  Background checks are worthless for reducing crime.  But it's an excellent way to create backdoor registration.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Tics was a "lesser of two evils". It does have its flaws and is set to the wrong premise. I am against it. It doesn't stop anyone

from purchasing a firearm, other than those who think they should be able to. Criminals don't go to gun stores to buy theirs,

and they don't usually buy the majority of their firearms from individuals that are not already criminals.

[Worriedman]

Correct me if I am wrong, ( I am, it seems lately more than I am right) but, does the TICS system not include a FBI, TBI and local LE background check? 

 

Reading the TN Constitution, it says that the legislature has the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms. They, (TN legislature) has control over whatever the requirements are regarding the steps that a Citizen must take to purchase a firearm.  They have already decided that a background check is useful in reducing crime, it is a State requirement, not a Federal one.

 

As the "Big Push" seems to be to get rid of the "Gun Show Loophole" misnomer that it is, allowing individuals to take advantage of access to a publicly funded system that the public already pays for, even though they might charge a fee, could be advantageous to meet the criteria that is being desired in such voracious terms.

 

I see it running something like this.  You want to sell a forearms, the individual seeking to purchase it from a non-FFL individual gives the potential seller their DL number, they call it in, pay the TICS fee, get a transaction #, and have that then for the Individual's records.  (I keep a bill of sale for any transaction that I am party too).  Not requiring a serial number to validate the vetting process, simply the name and DL # seems to be a way to satisfy the outcry to vet purchasers and keep registration from being possible.  Takes the ability of FFL dealers to gouge the public away, all the user would be responsible for is the fee to the system, not any additional cost to a FFL dealer.

 

Check the people, not track the firearm.  Two birds, one rock.

[Worriedman]

Tics was a "lesser of two evils". It does have its flaws and is set to the wrong premise. I am against it. It doesn't stop anyone

from purchasing a firearm, other than those who think they should be able to. Criminals don't go to gun stores to buy theirs,

and they don't usually buy the majority of their firearms from individuals that are not already criminals.

I agree it does not stop any criminal from purchasing a firearm, but the perception is that they buy them from you and me, and we are in a perception war that we have to win, or we lose all.

 

If we can manage it to our preference so much the better.  Too many sheep out there who will go along with demanding "full background checks", well let's give it to them, on our terms.