VA Lawmakers .... doing a good job [Archive]

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 12:53 AM

[QUOTE=JV;192861]IMO - Our new Governor was not a welcomed addition. He's certainly in favor of more gun control. But, the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee killed 6 anti-gun bills

HB535 - Private sale background check
HB823 - Authorize private checks between folks at guns shows

Frankly these two are not bad ideas in my opinion and they are not anti gun. Anti gun bills limit the types of guns and ammunition you can buy. These bills seem to try to make it harder for unauthorized persons like Felons from buying guns. Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales. In my experience most of the guns I take of criminals are generally private sale and some are stolen. In my opinion everyone selling a gun should be able to call a number and check to see if the person is ok to purchase, record a confirmation number and then process the sale after that. No need to record firearms serial numbers or makes or models. I think that as gun owners we are so suspicious of any new laws because we are under attack that we are viewing everything as bad when not every proposal is.
Pat

LHS

01-18-2014, 01:28 AM

IMO - Our new Governor was not a welcomed addition. He's certainly in favor of more gun control. But, the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee killed 6 anti-gun bills

HB535 - Private sale background check
HB823 - Authorize private checks between folks at guns shows

Frankly these two are not bad ideas in my opinion and they are not anti gun. Anti gun bills limit the types of guns and ammunition you can buy. These bills seem to try to make it harder for unauthorized persons like Felons from buying guns. Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales. In my experience most of the guns I take of criminals are generally private sale and some are stolen. In my opinion everyone selling a gun should be able to call a number and check to see if the person is ok to purchase, record a confirmation number and then process the sale after that. No need to record firearms serial numbers or makes or models. I think that as gun owners we are so suspicious of any new laws because we are under attack that we are viewing everything as bad when not every proposal is.
Pat

I'd love to have a private access to NICS, without any serial # records. But how would you mandate using it for all transfers, without universal registration? In the end, the felons are going to get their weapons somehow. I'd rather not sacrifice my rights on the altar of hopelessness.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 03:12 AM

I'd love to have a private access to NICS, without any serial # records. But how would you mandate using it for all transfers, without universal registration? In the end, the felons are going to get their weapons somehow. I'd rather not sacrifice my rights on the altar of hopelessness.

This is my plan on how you could make it work. I understand the registration concerns and I don't want it either. Do like I posted earlier allow someone to call and see if someone is good to go for purchase. Record a confirmation number saying John Doe 12345533 for your records. Now for enforcement. Most honest people will follow the law. For those that don't set up sting operations like you do with hit men for hire. Where you pose as a convicted felon and try to purchase guns from people at gun shows etc. This is already being done. When you catch someone who is willing to sell to you after you tell them your a felon arrest them and lock them up for deterrence. Personally I will not sell my guns without going through an FFL unless I know the person very well like a friend. I don't want to live with arming some criminal and having to live with them killing someone else with a gun I put in their hands.
Pat

RoyGBiv

01-18-2014, 07:20 AM

Not saying I like this idea, just stating facts..

When I lived in NC, in order to buy a handgun you had to apply to the local Sheriff (even in a big city like Raleigh it was the Sheriff, an elected official, that handled this, not the city LE) for a permit to purchase. After a 7 day wait/background check, you could be issued up to 5 permits, good for as long as the guy who signed them was still in office. When you purchased a gun you handed one permit to the seller and he was required to keep it, ostensibly forever.

Certainly not a perfect system (how does the buyer know the gun is not stolen?), but it did accomplish a basic background check without registration.

BaiHu

01-18-2014, 07:29 AM

FWIW, that's kind of how it works in NJ. You apply for and get 5+ permits (don't know the limit) that expire in 90 days unless you renew* them at the station. Unfortunately, NJ went to a pistol/month restriction and 7 days moved to weeks. At one point, it took months during the Newton craziness.

*Renewing is usually very easy, but like anything involving people, it can vary from town to town how they'll handle it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

David S.

01-18-2014, 07:52 AM

Or..... you could make the system voluntary instead of mandatory. Maybe give legal or other incentives to encourage participation. They could even make an app for that. As a private citizen engaging in a FTF sale, I'd be willing to make a quick phone call to verify that the buyer was legal, especially if it offered me some sort of legal protection.
Cheers,
David

RoyGBiv

01-18-2014, 07:54 AM

Kyle Reese

01-18-2014, 08:33 AM

Frankly these two are not bad ideas in my opinion and they are not anti gun. Anti gun bills limit the types of guns and ammunition you can buy. These bills seem to try to make it harder for unauthorized persons like Felons from buying guns. Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales. In my experience most of the guns I take of criminals are generally private sale and some are stolen. In my opinion everyone selling a gun should be able to call a number and check to see if the person is ok to purchase, record a confirmation number and then process the sale after that. No need to record firearms serial numbers or makes or models. I think that as gun owners we are so suspicious of any new laws because we are under attack that we are viewing everything as bad when not every proposal is.
Pat

In a reasonable world where you were dealing with people who acted in good faith, this might be acceptable. However, McAuliffe is an ideologue and has stated his anti 2nd Amendment stance time and again. As such, giving the other side anything at this point is unthinkable.

Now, if private sellers could access a database to determine eligibility of a buyer prior to a sale, and this service was free and voluntary, I could get behind that.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, Maryland has fallen, and it's up to us in the Commonwealth to hold the line. We cannot give the other side an inch.

MDS

01-18-2014, 08:38 AM

I'd love a system like this....if I had any hope it wasn't going to suck. Call me cynical, but I've come to expect a certain level of incompetence from government programs, and feel strongly that these should be as KISS as possible.

TGS

01-18-2014, 11:15 AM

This is my plan on how you could make it work. I understand the registration concerns and I don't want it either. Do like I posted earlier allow someone to call and see if someone is good to go for purchase. Record a confirmation number saying John Doe 12345533 for your records. Now for enforcement. Most honest people will follow the law. For those that don't set up sting operations like you do with hit men for hire. Where you pose as a convicted felon and try to purchase guns from people at gun shows etc. This is already being done. When you catch someone who is willing to sell to you after you tell them your a felon arrest them and lock them up for deterrence. Personally I will not sell my guns without going through an FFL unless I know the person very well like a friend. I don't want to live with arming some criminal and having to live with them killing someone else with a gun I put in their hands.
Pat

Pat,

That's good and all, except most people conducting private sales in Virginia are already requiring some sort of "good guy ID".......from my experience living there, and having done 9 private transfers. I think there was only 1 person that didn't ask to see my CHP. So, the whole idea that this will do something that isn't already occurring is sort of false.

The voluntary NICS system wouldn't change the 1 out of 9 people who choose to not do it in the first place, and it's certainly not going to change the criminal element who are most likely purchasing their guns from other criminals. Yes, most criminals purchase their guns through "private sales," but there's no similarity between people on VAguntrader.com and criminal groups knowingly doing business with other criminals in purposely black market sales....and trying to regulate the former will not impact the latter in any way whatsoever.

They're criminals. They're going to choose to do it illegally anyway.

GardoneVT

01-18-2014, 11:39 AM

HB535 - Private sale background check
HB823 - Authorize private checks between folks at guns shows

Frankly these two are not bad ideas in my opinion and they are not anti gun.

Wrong. They infringe on the rights of Americans to exercise their ability to own firearms. If background checks were so vital , why is it that one can vote , get married, and even have CHILDREN without one?

Anti gun bills limit the types of guns and ammunition you can buy. These bills seem to try to make it harder for unauthorized persons like Felons from buying guns. Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales. In my experience most of the guns I take of criminals are generally private sale and some are stolen. In my opinion everyone selling a gun should be able to call a number and check to see if the person is ok to purchase, record a confirmation number and then process the sale after that. No need to record firearms serial numbers or makes or models. I think that as gun owners we are so suspicious of any new laws because we are under attack that we are viewing everything as bad when not every proposal is.
Pat

I dug up some government files relating to NICS here at my University's database , and what I found was shocking. In essence, NICS is a shell, a paper tiger.
The system's greatest weakness is that it can only flag people it knows about. That's a problem, because a bad guy who commits a crime won't wait on a court clerk or an LE agency's back office to fax in his warrant before breaking the law again. One document I read was a transcript of a Congressional review of the program, and a rep from the Illinois State Police testified their department had a five year backlog on offenders' info being entered into the NICS database.

To add insult to injury, the NICS system wrongfully denies hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens annually. The system has an advertised accuracy rate of 95% , which sounds pretty good at face value. However, multiply that 5% error against the millions of background checks done nationally , and what you have are tens of thousands of law abiding people being treated like scumbags just to exercise their rights.

Considering Ray J Felon probably won't be prosecuted anyways if he's caught failing a 4473/ NICS check, we can safely conclude the entire enterprise is a farce. Forget private background checks-dispense with the entire system , and lets put away bad guys for doing bad things, instead of creating an artificial eligibility list which costs millions to maintain and can't stop an illegal gun purchase anyways.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 01:33 PM

Wrong. They infringe on the rights of Americans to exercise their ability to own firearms. If background checks were so vital , why is it that one can vote , get married, and even have CHILDREN without one?

I dug up some government files relating to NICS here at my University's database , and what I found was shocking. In essence, NICS is a shell, a paper tiger.
The system's greatest weakness is that it can only flag people it knows about. That's a problem, because a bad guy who commits a crime won't wait on a court clerk or an LE agency's back office to fax in his warrant before breaking the law again. One document I read was a transcript of a Congressional review of the program, and a rep from the Illinois State Police testified their department had a five year backlog on offenders' info being entered into the NICS database.

To add insult to injury, the NICS system wrongfully denies hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens annually. The system has an advertised accuracy rate of 95% , which sounds pretty good at face value. However, multiply that 5% error against the millions of background checks done nationally , and what you have are tens of thousands of law abiding people being treated like scumbags just to exercise their rights.

Considering Ray J Felon probably won't be prosecuted anyways if he's caught failing a 4473/ NICS check, we can safely conclude the entire enterprise is a farce. Forget private background checks-dispense with the entire system , and lets put away bad guys for doing bad things, instead of creating an artificial eligibility list which costs millions to maintain and can't stop an illegal gun purchase anyways.
If done right they don't infringe on law abiding citizens rights to own firearms and felons don't have said rights. As for felons not being prosecuted that is a failing of the people running the system not the law itself. I would bet most of those errors (5%) are from people unwilling to give their social security number. I can understand concerns that the system will be run or has been run poorly but that can be fixed. We do have a problem with felons and the mentally ill getting firearms and that problem needs to be addressed and should not simply be ignored. Yet at the same time we need to make sure that law abiding citizens are able to to buy the guns they want.
Pat

joshs

01-18-2014, 02:05 PM

If done right they don't infringe on law abiding citizens rights to own firearms and felons don't have said rights. As for felons not being prosecuted that is a failing of the people running the system not the law itself. I would bet most of those errors (5%) are from people unwilling to give their social security number. I can understand concerns that the system will be run or has been run poorly but that can be fixed. We do have a problem with felons and the mentally ill getting firearms and that problem needs to be addressed and should not simply be ignored. Yet at the same time we need to make sure that law abiding citizens are able to to buy the guns they want.
Pat

I don't have access to the report right now, but I'm pretty sure that most incorrect denials come from incomplete dispositions or the examiner thinking a record is prohibiting when in fact, it is not. Failure to provide a SSN shouldn't result in a denial, but it could create a delay.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 02:16 PM

I don't have access to the report right now, but I'm pretty sure that most incorrect denials come from incomplete dispositions or the examiner thinking a record is prohibiting when in fact, it is not. Failure to provide a SSN shouldn't result in a denial, but it could create a delay.

I am not sure it was just a guess. I can understand not wanting the current anti gun politicians to write any law. But I imagine say a group like those on this forum could come up with some pretty good solutions that would make it harder for felons or the mentally ill to get guns while not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Pat

Drang

01-18-2014, 07:11 PM

If done right....
Aye, there's the rub...

Note that that the FedGov hired the people who screwed up Canada's long gun registry to screw up Obamacare. We should have faith that ANY government is going to "do (things) right", without infringing any citizen's rights?

jetfire

01-18-2014, 09:28 PM

Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons
Pat

*Citation needed.

Just repeating Michael Bloomberg's talking points without citing sources isn't a good basis to build your argument from.

John Hearne

01-18-2014, 09:41 PM

Just repeating Michael Bloomberg's talking points without citing sources isn't a good basis to build your argument from.

Especially since all the criminological research says otherwise.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 10:35 PM

Aye, there's the rub...

Note that that the FedGov hired the people who screwed up Canada's long gun registry to screw up Obamacare. We should have faith that ANY government is going to "do (things) right", without infringing any citizen's rights?
Not saying that. I am just saying that a background check system would not be bad and could do a lot of good if set up properly. Agree with you on the fact I would not want it set up by antigun political appointees.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 10:36 PM

*Citation needed.

Just repeating Michael Bloomberg's talking points without citing sources isn't a good basis to build your argument from.

Source my 14 years of experiences in law enforcement. What's yours?
Pat

jlw

01-18-2014, 11:05 PM

Source my 14 years of experiences in law enforcement. What's yours?
Pat

In that case, my 15 years of experience would like to ask your 14 years of experience for a definition of "lots" to include percentages of said felons among the total number of people buying guns at gun shows and documentation of arrests to back up your figures as I am certain that an experienced lawman such as yourself didn't stand idly by and allow such crimes to take place without any action on your part.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 11:28 PM

In that case, my 15 years of experience would like to ask your 14 years of experience for a definition of "lots" to include percentages of said felons among the total number of people buying guns at gun shows and documentation of arrests to back up your figures as I am certain that an experienced lawman such as yourself didn't stand idly by and allow such crimes to take place without any action on your part.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Most of the guns I have taken off of felons were not stolen and were purchased from private parties. The remaining were stolen. If I had to ballpark percentage it from memory I would say 75% purchased from private sales vs. 25% stolen guns. Its even easier now with all the local electronic bulletin board sales sites similar to Craig's list. I firmly believe that people selling a gun should have to go through an FFL or be able to go directly to NICS themselves. No I am not going to post official arrest reports to an internet forum and I am sure you know better than to do that yourself. I am sure if you went over your own cases you would recall a lot that were privately purchased firearms.
Pat

PPGMD

01-18-2014, 11:33 PM

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Most of the guns I have taken off of felons were not stolen and were purchased from private parties. The remaining were stolen. If I had to ballpark percentage it from memory I would say 75% purchased from private sales vs. 25% stolen guns. Its even easier now with all the local electronic bulletin board sales sites similar to Craig's list. I firmly believe that people selling a gun should have to go through an FFL or be able to go directly to NICS themselves. No I am not going to post official arrest reports to an internet forum and I am sure you know better than to do that yourself.

My 16 years of schooling says that the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" adding that all sales must go through FFLs is, in my expert opinion, another infringement.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 11:37 PM

My 16 years of schooling says that the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" adding that all sales must go through FFLs is, in my expert opinion, another infringement.

That is your right to believe that. All of our rights have limitations. For example you can not yell fire in a crowded theater but you have a right to free speech. A background check requirement is not to the point of an infringement for a law abiding citizen at worst its a minor inconvenience. Now to a felon its an infringement and that's good. I also have 16 years of schooling. 1-12 and a 4 year bachelors degree with a major in Criminal Justice and a minor in Political Science so I guess my expert opinion is equal to yours.
Pat

frozentundra

01-18-2014, 11:38 PM

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Most of the guns I have taken off of felons were not stolen and were purchased from private parties. The remaining were stolen. If I had to ballpark percentage it from memory I would say 75% purchased from private sales vs. 25% stolen guns. Its even easier now with all the local electronic bulletin board sales sites similar to Craig's list. I firmly believe that people selling a gun should have to go through an FFL or be able to go directly to NICS themselves. No I am not going to post official arrest reports to an internet forum and I am sure you know better than to do that yourself. I am sure if you went over your own cases you would recall a lot that were privately purchased firearms.
Pat

About how many guns does the 75% represent? Is it 750, or more like 3? Not trying to be difficult, but it would help me understand where you are coming from.

jlw

01-18-2014, 11:46 PM

About how many guns does the 75% represent? Is it 750, or more like 3? Not trying to be difficult, but it would help me understand where you are coming from.

This is what I am hitting at. What is "lots"? No context is being provided.

Oh yeah, in my state arrest reports of public record and subject to any form of dissemination to include being posted on the interweb.

Alaskapopo

01-18-2014, 11:49 PM

This is what I am hitting at. What is "lots"? No context is being provided.

Oh yeah, in my state arrest reports of public record and subject to any form of dissemination to include being posted on the interweb.
Arrest records are public here as well but department policy is to refer people to the court to get those records. I don't even have an easy way of searching something like that. Frankly 1 is too many. I am all for making it as tough as possible for felons and the mentally ill from getting guns and I believe that can be done with very little inconvenience to law abiding citizens.

Back to the other poster on infringement. What is and what is not infringement will be decided by men and women on the court with far more legal education than either one of us. Another example the 4th amendment provides you protection from warrantless searches however there are legally recognized search warrant exemptions such as hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, open fields etc. Nothing is absolute.
Pat

jlw

01-18-2014, 11:59 PM

Arrest records are public here as well but department policy is to refer people to the court to get those records. I don't even have an easy way of searching something like that. Frankly 1 is too many. I am all for making it as tough as possible for felons and the mentally ill from getting guns and I believe that can be done with very little inconvenience to law abiding citizens.

Back to the other poster on infringement. What is and what is not infringement will be decided by men and women on the court with far more legal education than either one of us.
Pat

My state's open record law is that without the appointment of a specific open records officer, a member of the public could walk up to any member of an agency and verbally request a copy of a report and that person must provide it, and the AG does prosecute failure to do as is this is his pet issue and he pushed the legislation. We appointed an open records officer.

You made the assertion of "lots". I really would like context as to what "lots" means.

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:03 AM

PPGMD

01-19-2014, 12:12 AM

Back to the other poster on infringement. What is and what is not infringement will be decided by men and women on the court with far more legal education than either one of us. Another example the 4th amendment provides you protection from warrantless searches however there are legally recognized search warrant exemptions such as hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, open fields etc. Nothing is absolute.

We've gotten so far from shall no be infringed, what is another infringement?

Next we need to enforce the ban on private sales by forcing people to register their guns. But hey what is another infringement?

I say no more. We have a line that we must defend. If the felon is so dangerous, what is he doing outside of jail. How about instead of violating the rights of normal law abiding people, if felons are too dangerous to own guns they are too dangerous to be on the streets.

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:32 AM

Lots is not going to be a finite number its going to be a percentage. I hope you can understand the difficulty in going back by memory and trying to recall each and every case of me dealing with a felon with a firearm form 1999 to 2014. That is like asking me to remember how many traffic tickets I have written in 14 years. 75% of the guns in felons hands being from private sales rather it be from Craigs list or purchasing from a friend is lots. I think we can all agree that felons having easy access to buying firearms is a bad thing. The argument is on how to solve it. Its not an issue we can just ignore and bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. As for your states laws I can only hope your records officers black out SSN numbers, phone numbers and other private information to at least protect the victims and witnesses.

I'm not asking for specific numbers. I am asking for context.

For example, the neighboring county held a press conference to announce that they held burglaries to under 2000 for the year. In the same time period, my boss was in my office after our 67th burglary yelling at me that we had better

In your 14 years, does 10 amount to "lots" or does 200? Is it something you run across several times a shift or several times a year?

Have you arrested felons attempting to purchase firearms at gun shows?

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 01:16 AM

I'm not asking for specific numbers. I am asking for context.

For example, the neighboring county held a press conference to announce that they held burglaries to under 2000 for the year. In the same time period, my boss was in my office after our 67th burglary yelling at me that we had better

In your 14 years, does 10 amount to "lots" or does 200? Is it something you run across several times a shift or several times a year?

Have you arrested felons attempting to purchase firearms at gun shows?
At my current departments its a lot slower so maybe a once or twice a year for the last 8 years. At my first department which was a lot busier more like 2 or 3 times per month over a 6 year period. As for the gun shows none in my area but I have been to them and you see the shady characters with signs saying not an FFL etc. and equally suspicious people going up to them. I think we can all agree that it is happening more than we want to admit to non gun owners.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 01:19 AM

We've gotten so far from shall no be infringed, what is another infringement?

Next we need to enforce the ban on private sales by forcing people to register their guns. But hey what is another infringement?

I say no more. We have a line that we must defend. If the felon is so dangerous, what is he doing outside of jail. How about instead of violating the rights of normal law abiding people, if felons are too dangerous to own guns they are too dangerous to be on the streets.

Infringement can mean different things to different people I suppose. You seem to think it means costing you about 10 minutes of time filing out some paper work. I think it means banning ownership of a firearm or making it impossible to use or lawfully. Also anyone even remotely familiar with the criminal justice system knows that felons get out way before they should and no they are not safe to on firearms. When you commit a felony you lose certain rights for life and that is just part of being a felon. Actions have life long effects. That is reality.

I say no more. No more allowing felons to have an easy way to get firearms. In the end your opinion and mine are not the ones that matter. Its up to the court to make those decisions.
Pat

Le Français

01-19-2014, 03:43 AM

Infringement can mean different things to different people I suppose. You seem to think it means costing you about 10 minutes of time filing out some paper work. I think it means banning ownership of a firearm or making it impossible to use or lawfully. Also anyone even remotely familiar with the criminal justice system knows that felons get out way before they should and no they are not safe to on firearms. When you commit a felony you lose certain rights for life and that is just part of being a felon. Actions have life long effects. That is reality.

I say no more. No more allowing felons to have an easy way to get firearms. In the end your opinion and mine are not the ones that matter. Its up to the court to make those decisions.
Pat

Pat, I suggest that you do some research into just how easy it is to commit a felony these days. Criminal laws are staggeringly numerous, frequently vague, and very often cover behavior that has nothing whatsoever to do with violence.

One thing to remember when considering the ban on the possession of firearms by convicted felons is this: There is no hard and fast limit on what type of behavior legislatures and administrative agencies can make felonious. What was a misdemeanor (or a civil violation, or completely legal) yesterday can be a felony today or tomorrow.

The government prohibits all convicted felons from possessing firearms, but the government also gets to decide what behavior can lead to a felony conviction.

See a problem?

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 04:20 AM

Pat, I suggest that you do some research into just how easy it is to commit a felony these days. Criminal laws are staggeringly numerous, frequently vague, and very often cover behavior that has nothing whatsoever to do with violence.

One thing to remember when considering the ban on the possession of firearms by convicted felons is this: There is no hard and fast limit on what type of behavior legislatures and administrative agencies can make felonious. What was a misdemeanor (or a civil violation, or completely legal) yesterday can be a felony today or tomorrow.

The government prohibits all convicted felons from possessing firearms, but the government also gets to decide what behavior can lead to a felony conviction.

See a problem?
With respect I am in law enforcement and I know the laws at least the ones for my area and I don't buy that you can just somehow be walking along and uh oh I just committed a felony damn. Sorry it does not work like that. Yes there are more laws today but to reach the felony level you have to pretty much know what you are getting into and know that its wrong. I think the line of reasoning you are using is another attempt that people use to make excuses for their behavior. I also don't think that just because your crime was non violent that it should not be a felony. More and more people are getting robbed today on line and losing a lot more money than in the typical strong arm robbery. These guys are ruining peoples lives they should not get their civil rights back just because they were not violent. I think for someone to get their rights back they should have to prove to society that they have earned that trust back again. That process should be hard and long. Also we are the government. If we don't like the laws we can vote out our representatives. We can get enough signatures and put the issue directly on the ballot for the people etc. I think blaming the government for all of our problems is much akin to certain members of the civil rights movement blaming the man for every bad thing that happens to them. At a certain point we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I understand peoples concern about having more guns laws shoved down our throats and I support the push back. But I just don't see background checks as gun control. That is my opinion and worth no more than anyone elses here.

Pat

Le Français

01-19-2014, 05:48 AM

GardoneVT

01-19-2014, 07:28 AM

With respect I am in law enforcement and I know the laws at least the ones for my area and I don't buy that you can just somehow be walking along and uh oh I just committed a felony damn. Sorry it does not work like that. Yes there are more laws today but to reach the felony level you have to pretty much know what you are getting into and know that its wrong. I think the line of reasoning you are using is another attempt that people use to make excuses for their behavior. I also don't think that just because your crime was non violent that it should not be a felony. More and more people are getting robbed today on line and losing a lot more money than in the typical strong arm robbery. These guys are ruining peoples lives they should not get their civil rights back just because they were not violent. I think for someone to get their rights back they should have to prove to society that they have earned that trust back again. That process should be hard and long. Also we are the government. If we don't like the laws we can vote out our representatives. We can get enough signatures and put the issue directly on the ballot for the people etc. I think blaming the government for all of our problems is much akin to certain members of the civil rights movement blaming the man for every bad thing that happens to them. At a certain point we need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

I understand peoples concern about having more guns laws shoved down our throats and I support the push back. But I just don't see background checks as gun control. That is my opinion and worth no more than anyone elses here.

Pat

There are two major issues with that perspective.

One, anti gun administrators and elected officials WILL abuse a BG check system for political ends.Look at California- their DOJ , under direction of an anti gun state AG, has been sued for holding purchases indefinitely for arrests without a documented disposition.The problem is, some of those buyers' arrests happened during the late or mid 70's , so digging up a record of the dismissed charges is almost impossible.No record= no approved gun sale.

Two, a BG check system is like any other computer database: it's only as good as the data someone puts in it.I live in a rural community covered by a local LE agency and the county Sheriffs office.Optimistically there might be twenty LEOs on duty at any time , total, for this county of over 25,000 in population. Considering a disqualifying offense includes domestic violence ROs, temporary and permanent, as well as a litany of other offenses and drug useage no matter the amount, how the heck can a rural agency NOT generate a massive backlog almost immediately? Either you pull every officer on the street and assign them a desk,which would have deleterious effects on local crime , or you assign one poor soul whose full time job is sending forms and warrants to the NICS center.

There are counties in this state with an even lower LEO to citizen ratio.

And that doesn't include temporary events and tourists.

Even if a BG check system could be conclusively proven to halt firearm related crimes -and that's a very big IF-for most states in the US it's a logistical impossibility to maintain. You may as well ask LE to document every broken taillight in their jurisdiction.

joshs

01-19-2014, 07:33 AM

Have you taken a look at the gun laws (just as an example) in places like MA, CT, NY, NJ, MD, Washington D.C. and CA lately? Do you really think that it is hard to violate those laws inadvertently? Do you really think that everyone who commits a felony by breaking those laws "pretty much" knew that what they were doing was "wrong"?

Exactly. As someone who lives with this regularly (ensuring that I don't have a single piece of brass stuck in a part of my vehicle that I can't get to without tearing out the interior before entering D.C. to visit my wife at work) I have a hard time with felon automatically = bad guy.

I'm also interested in more info on firearms entering the illegal market through private sale. This isn't consistent with what I've seen/heard elsewhere unless you are counting the transfer after a straw purchase as a private sale.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

TGS

01-19-2014, 08:23 AM

I say no more. No more allowing felons to have an easy way to get firearms.

Pat,

They're felons. They're criminals. They're going to do it illegally no matter what. No matter how much regulation you place on private sales, they're still going to do private sales without reporting to government officials.

trailrunner

01-19-2014, 10:21 AM

trailrunner

01-19-2014, 10:22 AM

...ignore duplicate post

JV_

01-19-2014, 10:44 AM

I'm a cyclist and ride year round. In the winter, I wear a face mask (like a balaclava) to keep my head and face warm. In Virginia, that's a felony. No kidding - I'm a felon.
I'm in NoVA, and I've done that more than a few times too.

LittleLebowski

01-19-2014, 10:57 AM

I'm a cyclist and ride year round. In the winter, I wear a face mask (like a balaclava) to keep my head and face warm. In Virginia, that's a felony. No kidding - I'm a felon.

Guess I am too.

TGS

01-19-2014, 11:01 AM

However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons;

When I lived in VA, my biking friends always referred to that.

jetfire

01-19-2014, 11:17 AM

Source my 14 years of experiences in law enforcement. What's yours?
Pat

That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. You specifically said that lots of sales at gun shows were going to felons. As there is no data available that backs that up, and in fact all the available data directly contradicts that statement; I'd like to know what your actual data is backing that.

RoyGBiv

01-19-2014, 11:38 AM

Can we agree that it would be impossible to implement a universal background check without universal registration? (I'll skip the discussion on how bad an idea that would be, both to implement and to acquiesce to)
Can we agree that even if every legally obtained gun was registered, there would still be tens of thousands (millions?) of illegally obtained guns in circulation outside the system?
Can we agree that only "good guys" will work within any universal background check system?
Can we agree that even if you drive all felons outside the system, felons will still get guns by stealing them or buying them from illegal sources (or printing them, soon)?
Can we agree that a parallel can be drawn between the decrease (or lack thereof) of illegal street drugs from the "war on drugs" and the decrease (or lack thereof) of felons in possession of guns? It won't turn out the way your "common sense" thinks it will turn out.

Every time I disarm to enter my kids school I find myself shaking my head at the absolute stupidity and refusal to accept the common sense reality that disarming honest people does not achieve greater safety for our children. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. "Common sense" my posterior.

ETA.....
Let's pretend that there are good arguments for and against universal background checks.

Why are those in favor of them focused like a laser on this one specific goal, rather than working in parallel on other causes of gun (and other) violence? Sure, keep working the background check thing and I'll keep opposing and maybe we'll find some common ground, but, why not also engage with me on the same side of solving mental health risk assessment/care/reporting and fixing the glaring security theater fallacy that is "gun free schools zones".?

It's as if those seeking universal registration/background checks/mag limits only want to use these issues as a way to divide the sheep, rather than actually make progress towards goals that we all share. Look at what happened in NY. Proponents of the SAFE act are busy declaring themselves the winners, but we all know that the reality is they have not stopped a single bad guy, created a slew of flypaper laws that are catching otherwise honest citizens and have failed to focus on the real issues, among them leaving children unprotected in schools.

ST911

01-19-2014, 11:54 AM

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:00 PM

At my current departments its a lot slower so maybe a once or twice a year for the last 8 years. At my first department which was a lot busier more like 2 or 3 times per month over a 6 year period. As for the gun shows none in my area but I have been to them and you see the shady characters with signs saying not an FFL etc. and equally suspicious people going up to them. I think we can all agree that it is happening more than we want to admit to non gun owners.
Pat

The gun show portion of your argument does not match my own experience which includes gun shows in the metro-Atlanta area. Granted, I seldom go to gun shows.

As for criminals with guns, my experience is that the firearms were typically not obtained via legal means.

As for people becoming felons, maybe things are different out in your parts, but there are laws here that if strictly enforced by the letter that would result in people with no criminal intent becoming felons. Here it is illegal to possess prescription drugs outside of the original containers. However, in pretty much every pharmacy they sell those little organizers with compartments for each day of the week. A person organizing their meds in such a manner is technically committing a felony.

Prior to 2010, evening pulling into the parking lots of certain locations with a firearm in the vehicle was a felony in my state.

A teenager making a fake ID in order to sneak into a bar is felon in my state. I don't think that should result in a lifelong prohibition from gun ownership.

There are felons and then there are felons, and there is a difference.

LittleLebowski

01-19-2014, 12:10 PM

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:19 PM

The gun show portion of your argument does not match my own experience which includes gun shows in the metro-Atlanta area. Granted, I seldom go to gun shows.

As for criminals with guns, my experience is that the firearms were typically not obtained via legal means.

As for people becoming felons, maybe things are different out in your parts, but there are laws here that if strictly enforced by the letter that would result in people with no criminal intent becoming felons. Here it is illegal to possess prescription drugs outside of the original containers. However, in pretty much every pharmacy they sell those little organizers with compartments for each day of the week. A person organizing their meds in such a manner is technically committing a felony.

Prior to 2010, evening pulling into the parking lots of certain locations with a firearm in the vehicle was a felony in my state.

A teenager making a fake ID in order to sneak into a bar is felon in my state. I don't think that should result in a lifelong prohibition from gun ownership.

There are felons and then there are felons, and there is a difference.
Please be more specific. Felons can not obtain guns by legal means because technically they can't own guns. So when they buy through a private sale its not legal but there is no way for a seller to know that. So in your experience have the felons you've arrested had stolen weapons? If they are not listed as stolen that means they were obtained through private transfer or the victims forgot to list their weapons as stolen.
As for felonies yes things are different in my parts. We don't have any easy to become felon laws that I am aware of. As for your pharmacy example please share the law indicating that.
Pat

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:22 PM

Please be more specific. Felons can not obtain guns by legal means because technically they can't own guns. So when they buy through a private sale its not legal but there is no way for a seller to know that. So in your experience have the felons you've arrested had stolen weapons? If they are not listed as stolen that means they were obtained through private transfer or the victims forgot to list their weapons as stolen.
As for felonies yes things are different in my parts. We don't have any easy to become felon laws that I am aware of.
Pat

Specifically, I am talking about the actual criminal element out on "the streets". Those folks simply aren't obtaining their gun through legal means whether or not they are convicted felons.

Articles do not go on NCIC unless there is an accompanying serial number. A gun can be reported stolen in a report such as "a 4" S&W model 64 was taken" but without a serial number it never goes into the system. They gun may get sold several times on the street and later pulled off of a thug. A check won't show it as stolen because a serial number wasn't entered, but that doesn't mean that the gun was obtained legally.

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:23 PM

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:24 PM

Specifically, I am talking about the actual criminal element out on "the streets". Those folks simply aren't obtaining their gun through legal means whether or not they are convicted felons.

Please be specific. How are they obtaining their weapons? Which illegal means? In my experience about 75% of the time they buy the gun from another person and its not a stolen weapon and in the remaining 25% they are stolen weapons. Also what is a an actual criminal vs a non actual criminal? lol
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:27 PM

That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. You specifically said that lots of sales at gun shows were going to felons. As there is no data available that backs that up, and in fact all the available data directly contradicts that statement; I'd like to know what your actual data is backing that.

Please share your data showing that no guns are purchased illegally at gun shows?
Pat

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:28 PM

Please be specific. How are they obtaining their weapons? Which illegal means? In my experience about 75% of the time they buy the gun from another person and its not a stolen weapon and in the remaining 25% they are stolen weapons. Also what is a an actual criminal vs a non actual criminal? lol
Pat

You caught me in mid-edit. I went into more detail.

What we run into is stolen firearms getting passed around on the streets from one thug to the next. Unfortunately, the actual legal owner didn't have a record of the serial number and thus it wasn't entered into NCIC at the time of the theft report and thus won't result in a hit when when run.

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:29 PM

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:30 PM

You caught me in mid-edit. I went into more detail.

What we run into is stolen firearms getting passed around on the streets from one thug to the next. Unfortunately, the actual legal owner didn't have a record of the serial number and thus it wasn't entered into NCIC at the time of the theft report and thus won't result in a hit when when run.
I can believe that. People are stupid and don't always record their serial numbers. But there is no way to quantify how many so unless its reported stolen you have to assume its not for statistical purposes.
Pat

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:37 PM

I can believe that. People are stupid and don't always record their serial numbers. But there is no way to quantify how many so unless its reported stolen you have to assume its not for statistical purposes.
Pat

Twice this month, we have seized guns with the serial numbers filed off of them. We haven't been able to match them up with theft reports yet, and we may not be able to do so do the aforementioned lack of a serial number at the time of the report, but those guns are clearly stolen. They may never go on a stats sheet as such though.

Tamara

01-19-2014, 12:40 PM

Considering Ray J Felon probably won't be prosecuted anyways if he's caught failing a 4473/ NICS check...

There's no "probably" to it; he won't be.

Tamara

01-19-2014, 12:41 PM

I don't have access to the report right now, but I'm pretty sure that most incorrect denials come from incomplete dispositions...

Bingo.

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:43 PM

Twice this month, we have seized guns with the serial numbers filed off of them. We haven't been able to match them up with theft reports yet, and we may not be able to do so do the aforementioned lack of a serial number at the time of the report, but those guns are clearly stolen. They may never go on a stats sheet as such though.

If the serial numbers are filed off I assume they are stolen as well for obvious reasons. I have only delt with guns like that a handful of times.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-19-2014, 12:45 PM

There's no "probably" to it; he won't be.

That is a problem with the application of the law not the law itself. I also get frustrated with the feds for not enforcing existing laws.
Pat

Tamara

01-19-2014, 12:50 PM

I think the term "convicted felon" has become sufficiently diluted enough that it offers very little indication of the gravity of a citizen's offense or their continuing danger to society. So much so, that when I hear it used I almost instantly disregard it until further detail is provided. At some point, I will likely feel the same way about the term "registered sex offender."

The felonization of offenses is mostly about political posturing and pandering, not useful or just categorization of short and long term consequences of crime.

I am aware of someone at a machine gun shoot at a private range where the berm literally butted up against the border of a state where civilian possession of automatic weapons was verboten. Theoretically, that someone might have been able to step from their right foot to their left foot and back again while holding an MP-5 and chanting "Not a felon. Felon. Not a felon..."

joshs

01-19-2014, 12:52 PM

That is a problem with the application of the law not the law itself. I also get frustrated with the feds for not enforcing existing laws.
Pat

I think the approach of hammering straw purchasers isn't all that great either. In many cases, straw purchasers are often women who are forced to make the purchase by their boyfriends or spouses. Perhaps I'm just soft on crime, but I'd have a hard time being convinced that these women, who are often in abusive relationships, deserve to be put in prison.

jlw

01-19-2014, 12:59 PM

I am aware of someone at a machine gun shoot at a private range where the berm literally butted up against the border of a state where civilian possession of automatic weapons was verboten. Theoretically, that someone might have been able to step from their right foot to their left foot and back again while holding an MP-5 and chanting "Not a felon. Felon. Not a felon..."

That makes me giggle.

jetfire

01-19-2014, 12:59 PM

Please share your data showing that no guns are purchased illegally at gun shows?
Pat

I never said that. You however made a wild statement about "lots" of guns purchased at gun shows which you have yet to defend.

TCinVA

01-19-2014, 01:07 PM

It's entirely possible that Mr. Po-po has observed phenomena in his geographic area that doesn't fit with national statistics.

It's also reasonable to remind Mr. Po-po that his limited observations do not necessarily make a good basis for policy, especially national policy. Especially when there's larger data sets that refute his limited observations.

jetfire

01-19-2014, 01:21 PM

hufnagel

01-19-2014, 01:22 PM

All of our rights have limitations. For example you can not yell fire in a crowded theater but you have a right to free speech
I'll be polite and frame my reply as, you have either incorrectly interpreted the 1919 SCOTUS ruling this entire 1st Amendment debacle stems from, or you've "drank too much of the Kool-Aid" surrounding it. I'll simply point you an article for you to consider at your discretion... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/not-many-exceptions-to-free-speech-guarantee
and quote the relevant part here...

Here’s what Holmes actually wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

Note the word "falsely" and the phrase "create a clear and present danger."

I also have 16 years of schooling. 1-12 and a 4 year bachelors degree with a major in Criminal Justice and a minor in Political Science so I guess my expert opinion is equal to yours.

I'll temper my commentary of this by only saying... education is not a hallmark of intelligence or comprehension. The overall impression I gather from your posts, at least in this thread, do not indicate you fully comprehend some of your statements.

Personally, I could see how an anonymized NICS type system could be useful. I would even support the one idea that was floated on this forum and elsewhere of the generation of a coded number by the buyer to give to the seller to demonstrate lack of ill repute in a person's background. BUT, only if it were forever impossible for it to be abused. Given that impossibility and the fact the current system at best demonstrates nothing more than a deliberate infringement on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (the people you serve) exercising their natural rights, and at worst is nothing more than kabuki theater, I do not see such a system ever being put into place.

Le Français

01-19-2014, 01:39 PM

Pat, are you by chance familiar with the federal Gun Free School Zones Act? If not, I suggest you read through it. Among other things, it makes it a felony for off-duty LEOs carrying solely on their credentials (in accordance with the LEOSA) to carry within 1000 feet of school property. As I understand it, it also makes it a felony for them to discharge a firearm within 1000 feet of school property, even in self defense.

It is just another example of how people who are doing nothing wrong can run afoul of inane legislation and find themselves facing felony charges. That could be you.

John Hearne

01-19-2014, 11:28 PM

From the FBI's Violent Encounters study:

- 97% of the handguns used were obtained illegally.
- None of the weapons used were purchased at gun shows.
- Trade or illegal sale was the most common source of criminal guns.
- Once used in a crime, the guns were sold to other criminals.

If crime guns are coming from illegal criminal-to-criminal sales, how does any sort of mandatory background check change anything? They're criminals, by definition they don't obey laws.

While older, Wright and Rossi's data on criminal gun acquisition showed very similar results but what do I know, I'm just a campfire girl in the LE field since 1992 with a Masters in Criminal Justice with a concentration in research methods and a published article in a peer reviewed journal.

TheTrevor

01-20-2014, 02:39 AM

I can commit a felony by turning a screw inside the magazine release button on any of my AR rifles, or inserting a magazine capable of holding >10 rounds into same. If I drive four hours to the east, into NV, doing either of those is perfectly legal.

I take exception to the assertion that avoiding felony charges is simple and straightforward under the laws in force today.

Alaskapopo

01-20-2014, 03:56 AM

I'll be polite and frame my reply as, you have either incorrectly interpreted the 1919 SCOTUS ruling this entire 1st Amendment debacle stems from, or you've "drank too much of the Kool-Aid" surrounding it. I'll simply point you an article for you to consider at your discretion... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/not-many-exceptions-to-free-speech-guarantee
and quote the relevant part here...

Note the word "falsely" and the phrase "create a clear and present danger."

I'll temper my commentary of this by only saying... education is not a hallmark of intelligence or comprehension. The overall impression I gather from your posts, at least in this thread, do not indicate you fully comprehend some of your statements.

Personally, I could see how an anonymized NICS type system could be useful. I would even support the one idea that was floated on this forum and elsewhere of the generation of a coded number by the buyer to give to the seller to demonstrate lack of ill repute in a person's background. BUT, only if it were forever impossible for it to be abused. Given that impossibility and the fact the current system at best demonstrates nothing more than a deliberate infringement on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (the people you serve) exercising their natural rights, and at worst is nothing more than kabuki theater, I do not see such a system ever being put into place.

So in a nice way you're saying I am stupid. Thanks. I think we (at least I am ) are done at this point in this thread.
Pat

hufnagel

01-20-2014, 09:15 AM

So in a nice way you're saying I am stupid. Thanks. I think we (at least I am ) are done at this point in this thread.
Pat

I would not characterize it as stupid. If I had to I would use the word "ignorant" of the ideas you've expounded, or have not rationally considered their ramifications.

Chuck Whitlock

01-20-2014, 04:01 PM

Back to the other poster on infringement............Another example the 4th amendment provides you protection from warrantless searches however there are legally recognized search warrant exemptions such as hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, open fields etc. Nothing is absolute.
Pat

Actually, the 4th provides protection from unreasonable searches, and requires that all warrants are supported by probable cause. (and I don't even have a degree)

As to the background thing....
In Nebraska you get a permit to purchase from your local LE agency, costs either $5 or $10, and it good for 3 years. Where I'm at you can get it in a day or two. FFL or private sale you show state DL and the permit (CHL substitutes). No paperwork or record required of private sales.

jthhapkido

01-20-2014, 04:09 PM

That is your right to believe that. All of our rights have limitations. For example you can not yell fire in a crowded theater but you have a right to free speech. A background check requirement is not to the point of an infringement for a law abiding citizen at worst its a minor inconvenience. Now to a felon its an infringement and that's good. I also have 16 years of schooling. 1-12 and a 4 year bachelors degree with a major in Criminal Justice and a minor in Political Science so I guess my expert opinion is equal to yours.
Pat

Part bolded in red is flat-out incorrect.

The sentence immediately afterward is a matter of opinion, not a statement of fact.

Last several sentences are irrelevant to the questions posed to you.

Arrest records are public here as well but department policy is to refer people to the court to get those records. I don't even have an easy way of searching something like that. Frankly 1 is too many. I am all for making it as tough as possible for felons and the mentally ill from getting guns and I believe that can be done with very little inconvenience to law abiding citizens.

Back to the other poster on infringement. What is and what is not infringement will be decided by men and women on the court with far more legal education than either one of us. Another example the 4th amendment provides you protection from warrantless searches however there are legally recognized search warrant exemptions such as hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, open fields etc. Nothing is absolute.
Pat

According to the part in red, what you are saying is that a large governmental intrusion requiring numerous resources to setup up, maintain, and operate, based on an entirely new set of specific laws passed by the federal government, should be implemented due to one specific singular event.

I find that argument non-compelling.

With respect to your commentary about "infringement," there is a significant different between the 4th amendment protections that clearly state in the amendment itself that exceptions apply in certain circumstances, and 2nd amendment statements that include NONE of those, stating clearly "shall not be infringed."

Opinions vary, of course. However, as an argument, your statement is not compelling.

Especially as your contention of a reason for this is that "lots" of guns were obtained by private sales at gun shows, but you have not yet shown this actually occurred, and when asked for specifics, cited "personal knowledge" which is another way of saying "I have stories, but not evidence." When re-asked for evidence, you state that where you come from, that kind of evidence isn't available, contrary to what is common elsewhere.

Alaskapopo

01-20-2014, 09:07 PM

Never mind no ground to be gained here we all have our minds made up.
Pat

GardoneVT

01-21-2014, 12:28 AM

Never mind no ground to be gained here we all have our minds made up.
Pat

Refuting your points is simple.I need only refer to the 1930s .Back then you could order a fully automatic Thompson SMG from the period equivalent of Amazon.com , and proudly take delivery of it at your own doorstep.

Yet, drive by shootings surprisingly were not commonplace. And, as the famous robbers like Dillenger roamed about committing heist after heist, the government drafted the NFA to present the appearance of....wait for it...."doing something about crime". Initial versions of the legislation which became the NFA actually included semi auto weapons ,before they were dropped as a concession.

84 years later, and the number of bad guys with registered full auto weapons can be counted on one hand.Yet thugs all over America still somehow have access to full auto Uzis and the like.

Background checks for gun purchases are kabuki theater.If some people with a US Government Top Secret security clearance -aka the Boss Level of Background Checks- still do illegal things up to and including treason , it's absolutely asinine to think a single page form will somehow compel people to beat that standard.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 01:09 AM

Refuting your points is simple.I need only refer to the 1930s .Back then you could order a fully automatic Thompson SMG from the period equivalent of Amazon.com , and proudly take delivery of it at your own doorstep.

Yet, drive by shootings surprisingly were not commonplace. And, as the famous robbers like Dillenger roamed about committing heist after heist, the government drafted the NFA to present the appearance of....wait for it...."doing something about crime". Initial versions of the legislation which became the NFA actually included semi auto weapons ,before they were dropped as a concession.

84 years later, and the number of bad guys with registered full auto weapons can be counted on one hand.Yet thugs all over America still somehow have access to full auto Uzis and the like.

Background checks for gun purchases are kabuki theater.If some people with a US Government Top Secret security clearance -aka the Boss Level of Background Checks- still do illegal things up to and including treason , it's absolutely asinine to think a single page form will somehow compel people to beat that standard.

You contradicted your self in one sentence. LOL out.

Pat

GardoneVT

01-21-2014, 01:12 AM

You contradicted your self in one sentence. LOL out.

Pat

Bank heist is not = to drive by shooting.

Thanks for playing!

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 01:17 AM

Bank heist is not = to drive by shooting.

Thanks for playing!

There was a lot of drive by gang type hits in the prohibition era leading up to this with the Tommy Gun it was one of the reason they wanted the NFA so badly lol. The use of automobiles by gangsters was one of the reasons for the .357 magnum being developed and a reason that the .38 super was popular during that time frame.

Thank you for the comic relief.
Pat

LHS

01-21-2014, 02:51 AM

There was a lot of drive by gang type hits in the prohibition era leading up to this with the Tommy Gun it was one of the reason they wanted the NFA so badly lol. The use of automobiles by gangsters was one of the reasons for the .357 magnum being developed and a reason that the .38 super was popular during that time frame.

Thank you for the comic relief.
Pat

And Bonnie & Clyde got their NFA toys by raiding the local National Guard armories. These were dirt-poor bandits, they couldn't afford to plunk down the modern equivalent of $3500 for a Thompson, so they stole them from the cops and military.

jthhapkido

01-21-2014, 07:33 AM

Never mind no ground to be gained here we all have our minds made up.
Pat

So---what you are saying is that when repeatedly asked to provide data for your contentions, you will not do so and yet will continue to say that you are correct, even in the face of data directly contradicting your opinion.

Okay. However, that also is not in any way convincing.

As with all topics, everyone is welcome to their own opinions. However, this does not mean that everyone's opinions are equally valid. The ones that actually use data that reflects reality are more valid---and thus, if you wish to convince people, or change their minds, you need to be able to back up what you are saying.

Here's the original point that got people asking:

Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales.

Absolutely nowhere have you supported this contention. Instead of convincing other people that your idea (that background checks should be universal) was a good one, quite the contrary has occurred: since, when asked repeatedly by people (who COULD provide actual statistics backing their contentions that contradicted yours) to source your information, you never did so, people were less convinced by your argument.

That's how it works.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 02:23 PM

So---what you are saying is that when repeatedly asked to provide data for your contentions, you will not do so and yet will continue to say that you are correct, even in the face of data directly contradicting your opinion.

Okay. However, that also is not in any way convincing.

As with all topics, everyone is welcome to their own opinions. However, this does not mean that everyone's opinions are equally valid. The ones that actually use data that reflects reality are more valid---and thus, if you wish to convince people, or change their minds, you need to be able to back up what you are saying.

Here's the original point that got people asking:

Absolutely nowhere have you supported this contention. Instead of convincing other people that your idea (that background checks should be universal) was a good one, quite the contrary has occurred: since, when asked repeatedly by people (who COULD provide actual statistics backing their contentions that contradicted yours) to source your information, you never did so, people were less convinced by your argument.

That's how it works.

Not one person provided linkable facts to refute anything. John quoted a few studies but no links to them. Not that useful. Opinions are like "you know the saying" and everyone has one. Also statistics can be manipulated as the anti gunners do showing guns in the home are more likely to be used on the home owner than an attacker by including suicide numbers. Like they say about lies, damn lies and statistics. How it works is this you take in the facts as you know them based on your own experiences and common sense and make a decision or form an opinion.

Also I am aware background checks will not stop all illegal gun sales or even a majority of them. But they will make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill from getting weapons while at the same time having no real impact on law abiding gun owners. They are a win win in my opinion. We all know that guns are not the problem its the people who use them criminally. Background checks are simply a law that makes it harder for the wrong people to get weapons.
Pat

jthhapkido

01-21-2014, 04:12 PM

Not one person provided linkable facts to refute anything.

Actual rational discussion does not work that way.

You make the statement---when called on it, you needed to back it up. It is not anyone else's job to refute what you said (though indeed, comments were made listing studies that have been done refuting what you said, if I recall correctly). It is your job to back up what you said.

If you cannot, then your argument is simply an opinion, not any sort of factual situation.

Saying "statistics can be manipulated" is another way of saying "I said that this happens lots of times, but I can't back it up. And when people disagree with me, I'll say that the stats are wrong."

Sorry, it doesn't work.

How it works is this you take in the facts as you know them based on your own experiences and common sense and make a decision or form an opinion.

Yes, but first you have to start with facts. You have presented none. And the statements of opinion you have made are in direct opposition to studies that have been done.

For example: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Source of gun---in 1997, when purchased, only 13.9% were purchased. Unsurprisingly, 78.8% were from friends, family, or illegal outside source. And hey, look at that---even in 1991 (prior to background checks and such, for the most part) only 20% bought theirs.

And HEY, look at that: both in 1991 and 1997, 0.6% and 0.7% of guns were obtained at a gun show. What a surprise, what people have been saying (opposite of what you said, that you couldn't back up) seems to be true.

Again---do you have any actual data to back up your claims? No? Ok, there we go.

tremiles

01-21-2014, 05:24 PM

Not one person provided linkable facts to refute anything. John quoted a few studies but no links to them. Not that useful. Opinions are like "you know the saying" and everyone has one. Also statistics can be manipulated as the anti gunners do showing guns in the home are more likely to be used on the home owner than an attacker by including suicide numbers. Like they say about lies, damn lies and statistics. How it works is this you take in the facts as you know them based on your own experiences and common sense and make a decision or form an opinion.

Also I am aware background checks will not stop all illegal gun sales or even a majority of them. But they will make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill from getting weapons while at the same time having no real impact on law abiding gun owners. They are a win win in my opinion. We all know that guns are not the problem its the people who use them criminally. Background checks are simply a law that makes it harder for the wrong people to get weapons.
Pat

Is there any data published anywhere at all that compares recovered guns used in crime sold by a private citizen to a unknown prohibited person versus stolen, straw purchased, illegal arms trade? Because the anti gun lawmakers are claiming private sales are a significant portion of guns used in crime, yet I haven't seen any data backing that up. And background checks on private sales do not affect stolen/straw purchased/illegal arms trade. Do gangs purchase guns from a guy advertising a FTF sale for his random gat with Trijicon HD's, packaged with his Sparks VMII with shark trim and matching mag carrier, 10 spare mags on PF, M4C, ARF, GlockTalk, MP-Pistol, HKPro, random gun board? Will regulating that sale make a .001% dent in gun crime?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 05:25 PM

Actual rational discussion does not work that way.

You make the statement---when called on it, you needed to back it up. It is not anyone else's job to refute what you said (though indeed, comments were made listing studies that have been done refuting what you said, if I recall correctly). It is your job to back up what you said.

If you cannot, then your argument is simply an opinion, not any sort of factual situation.

Saying "statistics can be manipulated" is another way of saying "I said that this happens lots of times, but I can't back it up. And when people disagree with me, I'll say that the stats are wrong."

Sorry, it doesn't work.

Yes, but first you have to start with facts. You have presented none. And the statements of opinion you have made are in direct opposition to studies that have been done.

For example: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Source of gun---in 1997, when purchased, only 13.9% were purchased. Unsurprisingly, 78.8% were from friends, family, or illegal outside source. And hey, look at that---even in 1991 (prior to background checks and such, for the most part) only 20% bought theirs.

And HEY, look at that: both in 1991 and 1997, 0.6% and 0.7% of guns were obtained at a gun show. What a surprise, what people have been saying (opposite of what you said, that you couldn't back up) seems to be true.

Again---do you have any actual data to back up your claims? No? Ok, there we go.

Getting a gun from family or friends falls under the definition of a private transfer. Also are you saying you agree with the anti gun state that a firearm in the home is more likely to harm you than someone else since all statistics are correct right? I don't need data I have real life experience.

0.8
39.2
Street/ille
g
al source
33.8
39.6
Friends or famil
y
0.6
0.7
Gun show
1.3
1.0
Flea market
4.2
3.8
Pawnshop
14.7
8.3
Retail store
20.8
13.9
Purchased from –
%
100.0
%
100.0
Total
1991
1997

According to what you linked if you add up flee markets, gun shows, and family or friends. Buying from friends or family is a private transfer. The number goes up to 41.3% of all guns in criminals hands through private transfers.
Pat

Pat

MDS

01-21-2014, 05:53 PM

Buying from friends or family is a private transfer.

How do we enforce a background check requirement for private sales? When background checks are required to buy guns, only criminals will (continue to) buy guns without a background check.

I don't need data I have real life experience.

/thread (I wish)

frozentundra

01-21-2014, 05:54 PM

Getting a gun from family or friends falls under the definition of a private transfer. Also are you saying you agree with the anti gun state that a firearm in the home is more likely to harm you than someone else since all statistics are correct right? I don't need data I have real life experience.
...............................
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
According to what you linked if you add up flee markets, gun shows, and family or friends. Buying from friends or family is a private transfer. The number goes up to 41.3% of all guns in criminals hands through private transfers.
Pat

Pat

The family or friends are committing a felony in order to provide the felon with a gun. If they are willing to do that, I don't see how disregarding a new background check law would slow them down.
Straw purchases are already illegal. I don't think new legislation would help much.

jetfire

01-21-2014, 06:00 PM

I don't need data I have real life experience.

This is why you're so frequently wrong about stuff, apparently.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 06:09 PM

The family or friends are committing a felony in order to provide the felon with a gun. If they are willing to do that, I don't see how disregarding a new background check law would slow them down.
Straw purchases are already illegal. I don't think new legislation would help much.
We need to enforce the laws we have but I see background checks as making it harder for criminals to get guns and that is a good thing. Who here thinks felons having easy access to firearms is a good thing? I bet no one does but that is what your saying by opposing background checks. I get that you don't trust the those in power to write a good law regarding background checks. That said a good law could be passed that protects gun owners and makes it harder for felons to purchase guns through private party sales.
Pat

TCinVA

01-21-2014, 06:13 PM

We need to enforce the laws we have but I see background checks as making it harder for criminals to get guns and that is a good thing. Who here things felons having easy access to firearms is a good thing? That is what your saying by opposing background checks.
Pat

Perhaps in an alternate universe where everything functions as you decree. In this one I just see people who don't believe that background checks will do spit to stop felons from getting guns.

frozentundra

01-21-2014, 06:16 PM

We need to enforce the laws we have but I see background checks as making it harder for criminals to get guns and that is a good thing. Who here thinks felons having easy access to firearms is a good thing? I bet no one does but that is what your saying by opposing background checks. I get that you don't trust the those in power to write a good law regarding background checks. That said a good law could be passed that protects gun owners and makes it harder for felons to purchase guns through private party sales.
Pat

I think that background checks are working just fine. I don't think they should be messed with.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 06:18 PM

I think that background checks are working just fine. I don't think they should be messed with.
They don't cover a huge percentage of the guns bought and sold. I am not sure of the exact percentage of new vs used guns sold. But I can tell you the used gun market is large where I am at.
Pat

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 06:20 PM

Perhaps in an alternate universe where everything functions as you decree. In this one I just see people who don't believe that background checks will do spit to stop felons from getting guns.

Or perhaps a universe where people use common sense reason vs emotions like fear.
Pat

frozentundra

01-21-2014, 06:23 PM

They don't cover a huge percentage of the guns bought and sold. I am not sure of the exact percentage of new vs used guns sold. But I can tell you the used gun market is large where I am at.
Pat

Background checks through an FFL dealer work. There is no way to regulate the private transfers. I just see additional checks as more red tape for law abiding people, while providing criminals with another law to ignore. Just my honest opinion.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 06:26 PM

Background checks through an FFL dealer work. There is no way to regulate the private transfers. I just see additional checks as more red tape for law abiding people, while providing criminals with another law to ignore. Just my honest opinion.

A simple way would be to require all gun sales go through an FFL dealer. Yes its a bit more red tape but not overly difficult or costly. I do it now for all the guns I sale because I don't want to arm some scumbag because I didn't know he was a felon. Frankly the only valid argument I can see against not wanting background checks on private sales is the fear that it will be turned into a registration scheme.
Pat

jetfire

01-21-2014, 06:32 PM

A simple way would be to require all gun sales go through an FFL dealer. Yes its a bit more red tape but not overly difficult or costly. I do it now for all the guns I sale because I don't want to arm some scumbag because I didn't know he was a felon. Frankly the only valid argument I can see against not wanting background checks on private sales is the fear that it will be turned into a registration scheme.
Pat

Were you even paying attention to the background check bill that was introduced last year?

frozentundra

01-21-2014, 06:41 PM

The government having control over all private firearms transfers is a bit outside of my comfort zone. Gives me the creeps. Makes me want to go find my tinfoil hat.

Alaskapopo

01-21-2014, 06:43 PM

The government having control over all private firearms transfers is a bit outside of my comfort zone. Gives me the creeps. Makes me want to go find my tinfoil hat.
Why? You already buy new guns I assume at least some of the time and then you submit to a simple fast background check through a dealer? Why would you be more worried with used guns?
Pat

frozentundra

01-21-2014, 06:57 PM

I guess it's not ME personally, but the idea of the AMERICAN PEOPLE giving power over ALL firearms transfers to the government from now until the end of time. That really creeps me out. All of this without being convinced it would make a difference, or not be used to weaken gun rights in the future.

BaiHu

01-21-2014, 06:58 PM

I'm going to attempt a different tact. Alaskapopo, have you ever lived outside of Alaska?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

GardoneVT

01-21-2014, 07:14 PM

Why? You already buy new guns I assume at least some of the time and then you submit to a simple fast background check through a dealer? Why would you be more worried with used guns?
Pat

Because there are people in the world who think guns in totality should be banned.

And they vote, which IS a problem for the rest of us.Like the NFA, what starts out as "a simple and fast background check" turns into "submit three notarized copies of Reason To Purchase to your Local Circuit Court, at which point you pay $150.00 for a one time Permission to Complete Private Sale Background Check .If you have any undisposed traffic tickets or arrests, your purchase WILL be DENIED pending administrative review.."

TCinVA

01-21-2014, 07:25 PM

Or perhaps a universe where people use common sense reason vs emotions like fear.
Pat

If my eyes have not completely failed me, you are the one who argued that not modifying background checks to your preference = giving guns to felons.

...and didn't you quit this thread like 5 times now? Insert Al Pacino gif here.

If you want to continue this sort of approach in "debating" things on the forum, have at it...but don't get offended when people start pointedly calling you out on your rather incredible assertions.

TheTrevor

01-21-2014, 08:15 PM

Again with the boss thing. Are you just trying to get banned, Pat?

Dammit, this is like watching a 50-car pileup from my front porch. I want it to end, but every time I think we're done with the screeching and the banging, there's another vehicle crashing into the pile.

TCinVA

01-21-2014, 08:22 PM

We now return you to your normally scheduled discussion.

John Hearne

01-21-2014, 11:58 PM

I don't need data I have real life experience.

http://www.evilsugarradio.com/episode-20-nick-tumminello-of-performance-university-bs-detection-how-to-do-science-the-scientific-method-rational-skepticism-epistemology-ways-of-knowing-how-to-think/190/

Joe in PNG

01-22-2014, 01:06 AM

Notes on Papua New Guinea and gun ownership in regards to the topic at hand. PNG has everything the most ardent gun banner wants, and more. Full registration, permits needed for each gun, and a permit needed to carry that gun. Ban on ammo except for range use. Ban on pistol carry permits unless the gun is 'grandfathered in'. No semiautomatic rifles allowed AT ALL.

And in what is a depressingly familiar refrain, you also have a ton of crime, murder, rape, and all the rest. Pretty much every expat or successful citizen has to hire security guards for their house 24/7, put bars on the windows, and a razorwire topped fence is a pretty solid idea.

Meanwhile, do the criminals have guns? Oh, yeah.

Don't work in PNG, and it ain't working in the US.

TheTrevor

01-22-2014, 02:18 AM

Joe, sounds very much like stories I've heard from the Philippines. Let me guess -- pump shotguns are the firearm of choice for the ubiquitous armed guards?

Joe in PNG

01-22-2014, 02:44 AM

Joe, sounds very much like stories I've heard from the Philippines. Let me guess -- pump shotguns are the firearm of choice for the ubiquitous armed guards?

Most of the guards are armed with nightsticks. The armed guys are either with the company response teams (the ones who reply to a call of a robbery in progress) or the armoured cars that pick up/deliver cash to businesses.

BaiHu

01-22-2014, 08:05 AM

Isn't that pretty close to how the laws are in sunny and peaceful Mexico?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

RoyGBiv

01-22-2014, 08:49 AM

A simple way would be to require all gun sales go through an FFL dealer.
How do you do this without registration?
And after 80% (never happen, but let's just say) of guns are registered, how do you account for the other 20%?

Futile.

jthhapkido

01-22-2014, 12:23 PM

I'm curious---do you actually believe that any reply you have given thus far has in any way refuted what other people have said? Seriously?

Getting a gun from family or friends falls under the definition of a private transfer.

Well, too bad that isn't what you said in the first place. I quote again:

Lots of illegal gun sales at gun shows to felons and through private sales.

But hey, let's go with private transfer, which of course is actually something different.

Let's see----according to you, the current situation is that lots of felons are getting firearms from family and friends through private transfers (which is a felony action), but adding a universal background check such as saying "every transfer must go through a FFL" will somehow change this?

Yeah, ok. That's obviously not going to work.

But again---that's not what you said in the beginning. And the study I cited showed directly that criminals got guns at gun shows hardly at all, directly refuting the "personal experience" that you stated but could never back up.

So---what are you arguing for again, that would make any difference at all to actual crime?

Also are you saying you agree with the anti gun state that a firearm in the home is more likely to harm you than someone else since all statistics are correct right? I don't need data I have real life experience.

Yes, because again (in apparently your world) there exists only extremes, and you prefer to put words in people's mouths to fit your own way of thinking so you can argue against them.

Apparently unlike you, I have actually read not only Kellermann's original study, but his commentaries and his followup studies. And apparently unlike you, I actually understand statistics such that I can directly show the errors of logic and fact (and math) that he made in his studies. As such, disagreeing with his conclusions is DIRECTLY based on the fact that statistics and math work very well.

Statistics are correct. This does not mean that people either set them up, work them, or apply them correctly, or that they draw logically supported conclusions from them.

It IS certainly true that it is well-known that "personal experience" (also know as collections of anecdotes) are just about useless for application to the general case, as it is extremely rare to find any particular individual whose experience set is sufficient to cover the possibilities, AND that they actually remember correctly.

According to what you linked if you add up flee markets, gun shows, and family or friends. Buying from friends or family is a private transfer. The number goes up to 41.3% of all guns in criminals hands through private transfers.

So, what you are saying now is that you didn't mean what you originally said, you REALLY meant all sorts of transfers of firearms, which of course adds up to a larger number. Right, right.

Let's see: you said "private sales and gun shows". Gun shows are shown to be obviously wrong, you ignore it. You then switch from "private sales" to "private transfers" which does NOT mean the same thing, and propose a "solution" of universal background checks that will make no change in the number of guns being illegally transferred since in many cases they are already being illegally transferred and it obviously isn't making a difference.

You then attack my words by mis-characterizing what I said, and formulating a ridiculous strawman that you proceed to use to attack my argument. (Which makes no sense, as your strawman has nothing to do with that facts as stated.)

And in the end, you say the brilliant
"I don't need data I have real life experience. "

....which really, tells me everything I need to know. It is actually rather scary to realize that a professional law enforcement officer admits to deliberately ignoring how we actually gain an understanding of crime, criminal actions, and forensics in favor of his own personal opinions, which are strongly at variance not only with the known research on the topic at hand, but also at variance with OTHER people's experience, many of which have more than he does.

Because, you see, if you attempt to argue that personal experience trumps data, then you are also stuck with the concept of "more experience means a better answer" --- so you are stuck with "he has more experience than I do, and his experience contradicts mine, so he must be right."

Unless, of course, your ACTUAL thinking is based on "This is my opinion, therefore it is right, and whatever I say as an argument really comes down to I'm not going to change my mind no matter what actual reality is shown to me."