View Full Version : How does Universal Background Checks not become complete registration
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-16-13, 17:30
Still trying to wrap my head around the theory and the actual working of UBC and penalties.
How do you know if someone violated the UBC law with out a registry of firearms. A cop pulls you over and you show him your CCW permit and he wants to see the gun. How can he or you prove that you bought the gun correctly? Here in Denver there have been reported cases of cops confiscating ARs even if they fall outside of the Denver AWB ban. They charge you and keep the guns and make you sue to get them back.
How does this not happen with the UBC. They'll keep the gun under suspicion and make you sue to get it back. Even if the law says differently, just look at how cities ignore the safe harbor laws.
Is the law going to be so limited that they can't charge you unless the actually see the transaction or one of the parties fesses up to it?
...Because you're racist!
It's a setup to force us to accept them "deeming it necessary" to implement a registry "for our safety". They're building another crisis. SOP of the authoritarian statists.
Alaskapopo
02-16-13, 18:14
The way background checks should be done would be to not require any firearm information at all. Do away with the 4473 form. Just have the seller call in a phone number enter the buyers information such as a name and drivers license number and get a thumbs up or a thumbs down. No information needed on what they wanted to buy.
Pat
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-16-13, 18:34
The way background checks should be done would be to not require any firearm information at all. Do away with the 4473 form. Just have the seller call in a phone number enter the buyers information such as a name and drivers license number and get a thumbs up or a thumbs down. No information needed on what they wanted to buy.
Pat
I agree with you. And granted that the anti's pass silly laws, but this one just gets sillier. Based on the model you mentioned, the only people charged would be the ones observed making the the trades, correct? What the hell is that going to fix?
Alaskapopo
02-16-13, 19:29
I agree with you. And granted that the anti's pass silly laws, but this one just gets sillier. Based on the model you mentioned, the only people charged would be the ones observed making the the trades, correct? What the hell is that going to fix?
Thats true you would have to do occasional stings to keep people honest. Its not perfect but that way you would not have registration.
Pat
I consider it a backdoor total registration. The key will be the retention of records at the federal level and how that is handled. Considering ATF's current leadership and funding issues, this may "sell well" to the anti lobby but could quite possibly dissolve in practice. Regardless, I don't like it.
Alaskapopo
02-16-13, 21:03
Ok lets think outside the box. We do have a problem of the mentally ill and criminals getting guns through various sources. How would you (anyone reading this) handle this issue?
Pat
Belmont31R
02-16-13, 21:07
Ok lets think outside the box. We do have a problem of the mentally ill and criminals getting guns through various sources. How would you (anyone reading this) handle this issue?
Pat
Mandatory reporting to NICS...which is what I thought the law was supposed to be? Some states are just not reporting mental cases to NICS despite being declared mentally unfit by a court.
Ok lets think outside the box. We do have a problem of the mentally ill and criminals getting guns through various sources. How would you (anyone reading this) handle this issue?
Pat
I've been stewing on this the past few months about the whole "mental" thing, and I think it is a slippery slope. Perhaps I'm wearing a bit of tinfoil but the whole thing about doctors asking about guns in the house during routine medical questions has always rubbed me wrong. A lack of a defined standard for whole is mentally capable to own/possess a firearm leaves the whole reporting issue up for abuse. If a police officer seeks counseling for an OIS, or a soldier is having issues with PTSD and a doctor reports them, that could be a career-ender. Especially if the medical professional has some anti-gun agenda. I don't know, it scares me.
Alaskapopo
02-16-13, 21:13
I've been stewing on this the past few months about the whole "mental" thing, and I think it is a slippery slope. Perhaps I'm wearing a bit of tinfoil but the whole thing about doctors asking about guns in the house during routine medical questions has always rubbed me wrong. A lack of a defined standard for whole is mentally capable to own/possess a firearm leaves the whole reporting issue up for abuse. If a police officer seeks counseling for an OIS, or a soldier is having issues with PTSD and a doctor reports them, that could be a career-ender. Especially if the medical professional has some anti-gun agenda. I don't know, it scares me.
I understand your concerns but what do we do about the problem.
Pat
I understand your concerns but what do we do about the problem.
Pat
That Sir, is the million dollar question.
I understand your concerns but what do we do about the problem.
Pat
There needs to be recognition that not all mental illnesses are alike. Someone suffering from mild depression or PTSD shouldn't be prohibited from owning firearm.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Belmont31R
02-16-13, 21:43
The real dangerous thing here is assuming the Obama/Biden line 'if we can just save one life' then its ok to ban XYZ.
You can't outlaw risk...but damned if some people won't try.
I've been stewing on this the past few months about the whole "mental" thing, and I think it is a slippery slope. Perhaps I'm wearing a bit of tinfoil but the whole thing about doctors asking about guns in the house during routine medical questions has always rubbed me wrong. A lack of a defined standard for whole is mentally capable to own/possess a firearm leaves the whole reporting issue up for abuse. If a police officer seeks counseling for an OIS, or a soldier is having issues with PTSD and a doctor reports them, that could be a career-ender. Especially if the medical professional has some anti-gun agenda. I don't know, it scares me.
I understand your concerns but what do we do about the problem.
Pat
They can start with actually enforcing laws currently on the books such as getting full compliance regarding the reporting of adjudicated mentally ill persons to the correct agencies for one.
Alaskapopo
02-16-13, 23:04
They can start with actually enforcing laws currently on the books such as getting full compliance regarding the reporting of adjudicated mentally ill persons to the correct agencies for one.
Which laws are not being enforced?
pat
Ok lets think outside the box. We do have a problem of the mentally ill and criminals getting guns through various sources. How would you (anyone reading this) handle this issue?
Pat
Arm other people who can defend against them.
Who cares if criminals have a gun? I have one too. And you know what? I practice with mine.
More dead offenders.
Ok lets think outside the box. We do have a problem of the mentally ill and criminals getting guns through various sources. How would you (anyone reading this) handle this issue?
Pat
Well we certainly wouldn't be silly enough to try making more laws that only the law-abiding will comply with. Criminals by definition really don't care about laws requiring background checks and neither do the crazies.
By and large mala prohibita laws just don't work, the ridiculous "war on drugs" is a shining example, hard drugs are prohibited and yet criminal drug users are still able to get access to them every day in every city in the US, including cities in Alaska. If you institute universal background checks do you honestly think that criminals will comply? Will the mentally ill?
Pat you may as well ask the question, "How would you stop criminals from being criminals?"
If we could stop criminals being criminals, we would have succeeded in bringing about heaven on earth...
Cameron
I sat through an entire day of testimony in the CO House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. A question posed to the Chair was "will universal background checks lead to registration?" The chair was speechless. He couldn't answer the question. A rep from the CO Police Chiefs Association called universal background checks an incremental step.
It's important to know that bloomberg's group is behind all of the "gun safely" legislation. The end game is confiscation. For confiscation they need registration. No registration without universal background checks.
Mike
MountainRaven
02-16-13, 23:39
I understand your concerns but what do we do about the problem.
Pat
How much of the problem would simply evaporate if we could simply root out all the meth labs, crack houses, and weed joints in our poorest neighborhoods?
How much of the problem would simply evaporate if we gave the persons living in such conditions the ability to get a quality education and pursue their own wealth?
Put offenders in jail. If you carry illegaly you do time, no more copping to the drug charge and drop the 2 year gun charge. You shoot someone you Do ten plus years, not out in 4. You kill someone you NEVER get out. There is no incentive for drug dealers gangbangers and general criminals to disarm. The risk of getting caught out there without it way outweighs the cost of getting caught with it. Start actually giving people a couple years for possession and maybe they will carry less and stop shooting up the neighborhood every time someone steps on their sneakers.
Which laws are not being enforced?
pat
Very few people that lie on the 4473 are ever prosecuted
UBC's does not have to require registration, but registration IS their real agenda
Which laws are not being enforced?
pat
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn%27t-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx#.UPx-L6cSgYQ.facebook
As has been widely reported, an NRA representative recently met with an Obama administration-directed firearm task force led by longtime gun control supporter Vice-President Joe Biden. It came as no surprise that the meeting had little to do with keeping our children safe and much to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. But you may be surprised to know one of the revelations that came out of the meeting.
Jim Baker, NRA-ILA's Director of Federal Affairs, represented NRA at the meeting. As detailed in a recent Daily Caller article, Mr. Baker was given five minutes to present NRA's concerns and the approach NRA saw as being the most effective way to safeguard our children. During those five minutes, Baker mentioned the need to vigorously prosecute existing gun laws. He further noted the low number of prosecutions for falsifying information on Form 4473s, and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes in general.
In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.
According to federal statistics cited in the Daily Caller article, in 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, and 40 additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession. Prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases, although more than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Overall, gun prosecutions per capita in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration's peak in 2004.
"We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws," said Baker. "If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now."
Commenting on the administration's inability to prosecute persons who lie to obtain a firearm, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said, "They don't have time to pursue people who are dangerous, who aren't supposed to get guns, and the message they have sent is literally 'Good luck, go get them elsewhere.' You can talk all you want," Cox continued, "but until there is a will to follow through, then it is literally just going to paper over the problem and guarantee that bad people continue to have access to firearms and good people will be blamed for it."
Thats true you would have to do occasional stings to keep people honest.
Hasn't LE been doing stings on things like prostitution and drug deals for quite some time now? Those illegal activities are still going strong, aren't they?
You could implement what you propose and Bloomberg & Co would be right back at our doors asking to close this new loophole where the gun info isn't part of the check. There's no way around it, registration is what they want...if they have to gradually shift the window to get there, they will.
FChen17213
02-17-13, 08:27
I actually came up with the exact same idea Alaskapopo did as well. The real purpose we should all have is to keep guns away from the mentally deranged and criminals. That's what I think we can all agree on. What we absolutely do not want is the government knowing what guns you have or how many guns you have.
That is why there should be a check with no paperwork or any record kept. It should be a simple proceed or denial. This way we make sure the guy isn't a violent felon but at the same time don't let the govt keep data on who has what.
While I also agree that the law would be hard to enforce, it is the best solution that I see at least for now.
CarlosDJackal
02-17-13, 10:12
... it doesn't. It is a defacto Gun Registration.
Even if they did not require that any gun information be entered, as has been suggested. The fact that a check was made against your record can be assumed as an indication that you may be obtaining a firearm.
Now, if they make it so that a check can be made on you for any reason; then the gun check would end up buried amid checks by prospective employers or once conducted by your girlfriend's parents.
But do we really want this type of capability available? And do we really want our medical records connected to this in any way shape or form?
There are a lot of people with mental health disorders and being successfully treated to the point that they show no signs of being any type of danger. The stigma attached to these people is leading to some who want to deny them their right to bear arms. Now, it's different when they are judged a danger to themselves or others, but even some 2A supporters believe that people with mental illness shouldn't bear arms at all. And for the patients that just see their doctor and take a pill once a day to stay well, how is anyone going to track them down to tell them they can't purchase a firearm. Doctor's records are confidential. I guess they could ask the person to check another box "on their honor" that they do or do not have had a mental health disorder. Many of these people get get better and function better than many of us after successful treatment.
Which laws are not being enforced?
pat
Specifically I was referring to the notion that many mental health courts do not always reliably submit who has been adjudicated mentally ill to the correct agencies, be they federal or state. Under the current scheme If the feds do not an individual has been adjudicated mentally ill and they don't admit to it on the 4473 at the time of purchase then they would not be denied. How frequent does this occur? I have no idea. However, it does stand to reason that if an individual is adjudicated mentally ill then they probably pretty significantly impaired to begin with so take that for what it is. But then again psycholegal criteria can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so if everybody isn't on the same page to start with that makes it only harder to enforce.
Alaskapopo
02-17-13, 14:21
Very few people that lie on the 4473 are ever prosecuted
UBC's does not have to require registration, but registration IS their real agenda
I agree they should go after people who lie on those. I would also like to see them go after more felons with guns. We charge them on a state level but the federal law has more teeth.
pat
I think the felons that have been released from prison should be allowed to own firearms. If they are no longer a danger release them and let the get back to a life with rights like the rest of us. If they are still a danger, keep them inside.
Cameron
Still trying to wrap my head around the theory and the actual working of UBC and penalties.
How do you know if someone violated the UBC law with out a registry of firearms. A cop pulls you over and you show him your CCW permit and he wants to see the gun. How can he or you prove that you bought the gun correctly? Here in Denver there have been reported cases of cops confiscating ARs even if they fall outside of the Denver AWB ban. They charge you and keep the guns and make you sue to get them back.
How does this not happen with the UBC. They'll keep the gun under suspicion and make you sue to get it back. Even if the law says differently, just look at how cities ignore the safe harbor laws.
Is the law going to be so limited that they can't charge you unless the actually see the transaction or one of the parties fesses up to it?
For the record, I am against UBCs and any other gun legislation that infringes upon my rights.
However, these only happen at the time of purchase. You would not be asked by a LEO during a traffic stop to prove how you got your gun, or that you submitted to a UBC. The legal requirement being proposed is that anyone purchasing or receiving a firearm from anyone else, must submit to, and pass a BC before the firearm can be transferred. Once the gun is in your possession, there are no further checks or requirements as far as UBCs go.
How about we do nothing? I'm happy with the current rate of firearms fatalities. Any further legislation is a trade off against our 2nd amendment rights. It's never going to be zero, so why isn't 10,000 acceptable ?
Sent from my iPhone on tapatalk
I've been stewing on this the past few months about the whole "mental" thing, and I think it is a slippery slope. Perhaps I'm wearing a bit of tinfoil but the whole thing about doctors asking about guns in the house during routine medical questions has always rubbed me wrong. A lack of a defined standard for whole is mentally capable to own/possess a firearm leaves the whole reporting issue up for abuse. If a police officer seeks counseling for an OIS, or a soldier is having issues with PTSD and a doctor reports them, that could be a career-ender. Especially if the medical professional has some anti-gun agenda. I don't know, it scares me.
THIS should be a huge concern for EVERY owner. Look at the progress they have made with "domestic violence" laws. My wife's best friend from high school and her husband are good friends of ours. One day the wife was having one of those "female hormonal temper tantrums" (her words, not mine), and she called the cops because he was trying to leave with his laptop. These people have been married for 20 years with no history of anything like this. When the cops arrived they cuffed and arrested him, searched the entire house, confiscated all the guns and hauled him off to jail. He never hit her or did anything at all to her. In fact she slapped him and scratched his forearm all up while trying to take his laptop from him. She begged and pleaded with the cops and they wouldn't hear any of it. She told them it was a mistake and that she shouldn't have called, and that he hadn't done anything at all, but they proceeded anyway. He was simply charged, but never convicted of "domestic violence" and he cannot get his guns back now. They simply refused to give them back even after charges were dropped, and according to him, he is not allowed to buy more. The man never did anything illegal. He simply had an argument with his irrational wife there were no guns or weapons involved at any time. Just a temporarily hysterical woman.
The points is the the lefties are looking for any and every way possible to separate us from our guns. This mental health business is shaping up to be a very dangerous back door for them to use to disarm us, one unfounded complaint at a time.
How about we do nothing? I'm happy with the current rate of firearms fatalities. Any further legislation is a trade off against our 2nd amendment rights. It's never going to be zero, so why isn't 10,000 acceptable ?
Sent from my iPhone on tapatalk
Sounds good to me. You want to call "them", or should I?
I think the felons that have been released from prison should be allowed to own firearms. If they are no longer a danger release them and let the get back to a life with rights like the rest of us. If they are still a danger, keep them inside.
Cameron
The recidivism rates are too high. Former felons associate with other former and current felons. It is the nature of the beast. The cost of committing a felony is the loss of some rights, it is part of the debt paid back to society. Losing the right to vote and to possess firearms is a reasonable price to pay.
Alaskapopo
02-17-13, 16:05
How about we do nothing? I'm happy with the current rate of firearms fatalities. Any further legislation is a trade off against our 2nd amendment rights. It's never going to be zero, so why isn't 10,000 acceptable ?
Sent from my iPhone on tapatalk
I understand what you are saying on the numbers but those parents and Sandy Hook would disagree. There are things we can do to make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals from getting guns while not infringing on law abiding citizens.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-17-13, 16:07
The recidivism rates are too high. Former felons associate with other former and current felons. It is the nature of the beast. The cost of committing a felony is the loss of some rights, it is part of the debt paid back to society. Losing the right to vote and to possess firearms is a reasonable price to pay.
Agreed part of the price of committing a felony should be you need to work hard to earn back the publics trust. It should not just be given to you when you get out of jail. That means no voting and now owning guns etc. Sorry I have absolutely no sympathy for felons.
Pat
sinlessorrow
02-17-13, 16:18
The current thing with the background checks they are pushing for just make it so every sale has to go through a FFL. Even if you sell to a friend it will have to go through an FFL who can call in and check they are ok, thats all it currently does.
PA PATRIOT
02-17-13, 16:18
How about we do nothing? I'm happy with the current rate of firearms fatalities. Any further legislation is a trade off against our 2nd amendment rights. It's never going to be zero, so why isn't 10,000 acceptable ?
Sent from my iPhone on tapatalk
Its great to make asinine statements like the one above as long as it does not affect you right?
If those numbers are good for you maybe you wouldn't mind if that reoccurring yearly total touches someone in your family or someone you care about.
Would you still be happy with the numbers then?
Whiskey_Bravo
02-17-13, 16:42
The way background checks should be done would be to not require any firearm information at all. Do away with the 4473 form. Just have the seller call in a phone number enter the buyers information such as a name and drivers license number and get a thumbs up or a thumbs down. No information needed on what they wanted to buy.
Pat
I would not have as much of a problem if BG checks where done this way. Although I still don't think I should have to do one if I want to give a gun to my wife or other family member.
How much of the problem would simply evaporate if we could simply root out all the meth labs, crack houses, and weed joints in our poorest neighborhoods?
How much of the problem would simply evaporate if we gave the persons living in such conditions the ability to get a quality education and pursue their own wealth?
Or have a reasonable discussion about drug legalization and the unwinnable war on drugs
Losing the right to vote and to possess firearms is a reasonable price to pay.
Until you're a Felon for attending a Tea Party rally. Or what about when you're a Felon because you refused to hand over your firearms during Katrina? Oops, you carried your concealed handgun into a gas station with a Post Office inside the minimart. Now you're a felon and have no rights.
I understand what you are saying on the numbers but those parents and Sandy Hook would disagree. There are things we can do to make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals from getting guns while not infringing on law abiding citizens.
Pat
Quite a few parents from Sandy Hook have spoken out against gun control efforts.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Until you're a Felon for attending a Tea Party rally. Or what about when you're a Felon because you refused to hand over your firearms during Katrina? Oops, you carried your concealed handgun into a gas station with a Post Office inside the minimart. Now you're a felon and have no rights.
A little bit out in tinfoil country there, don't you think?
Please provide an example of a felony conviction for any of the examples cited above. Just one.
Specifically I was referring to the notion that many mental health courts do not always reliably submit who has been adjudicated mentally ill to the correct agencies, be they federal or state. Under the current scheme If the feds do not an individual has been adjudicated mentally ill and they don't admit to it on the 4473 at the time of purchase then they would not be denied. How frequent does this occur? I have no idea. However, it does stand to reason that if an individual is adjudicated mentally ill then they probably pretty significantly impaired to begin with so take that for what it is. But then again psycholegal criteria can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so if everybody isn't on the same page to start with that makes it only harder to enforce.
What does adjudicated mentally ill mean so as to prevent firearms ownership. I ask because my earlier post questions whether many mentally ill who are being successfully treated should be able to buy firearms. Do we just treat them like felons (which I'm okay with) or do they get their right to purchase back after demonstrating that they are no longer mentally ill. Recidivism rates for felons are very high compared to low rates of relapse for mentally ill who get good treatment.
Second, I think Pat has the right prescription for background check reform.
What does adjudicated mentally ill mean so as to prevent firearms ownership. I ask because my earlier post questions whether many mentally ill who are being successfully treated should be able to buy firearms. Do we just treat them like felons (which I'm okay with) or do they get their right to purchase back after demonstrating that they are no longer mentally ill. Recidivism rates for felons are very high compared to low rates of relapse for mentally ill who get good treatment.
Second, I think Pat has the right prescription for background check reform.
At present all I see it as is an arbitrary designation that aside from its legal function, in this context serves as a identifier of who and who should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. But I see what your getting at. Simply saying that someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill by a court and therefore cannot do xyz in the future is paramount to limiting rights for behavior they have not yet engaged in (we do this with civil commitment tho). In a perfect world "good" treatment would be the norm not the exception but sadly that is not the nature of matters currently.
That and the majority of chronic illnesses be they axis I or axis II disorders have very high recurrence rates even if they are properly managed. Since it doesn't always take much to suffer a relapse if they go off their meds or the need a med change and are delayed in do so, or they just don't go out of their way to get it done.
I also think that from my observations all to often the majority of people who wind up being adjudicated mentally ill are either the ones who have committed a crime and are found not competent to stand trial, or instead, are the ones who wind up being involuntarily hospitalized and patient rights being what they are are allowed to refuse treatment until a court rules otherwise. Point is there are still a large number of people on the street with mental illness that none of us would want being in possession of a firearm who have never seen the inside of courtroom.
But at the end of the day even if we went so far as to say anyone who has ever been admitted inpatient, or has such and such diagnosis, or is receiving outpatient psychological treatment is barred from purchasing or owning a firearm it still wouldn't have stopped sandy hook from happening. Maybe we should bring back large volume state facilities and do away with the least restrictive doctrine of community based treatment, since afterall if ill persons are not out in the community they can't commit crimes.
Alaskapopo
02-17-13, 20:16
Quite a few parents from Sandy Hook have spoken out against gun control efforts.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Yes because the ones being pushed by anti gunners are infringing on peoples rights like the Assault rifle ban and a magazine capacity limit. Most people according to polling however are for background checks.
pat
Alaskapopo
02-17-13, 20:18
Until you're a Felon for attending a Tea Party rally. Or what about when you're a Felon because you refused to hand over your firearms during Katrina? Oops, you carried your concealed handgun into a gas station with a Post Office inside the minimart. Now you're a felon and have no rights.
No you're just crazy for attending a Tea Party rally. :dirol: Its really pretty hard to accidently commit a felony. Whoops I slipped and just committed murder. Damn how did that happen?
Pat
Yes because the ones being pushed by anti gunners are infringing on peoples rights like the Assault rifle ban and a magazine capacity limit. Most people according to polling however are for background checks.
pat
To the polling thats true but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people (who are not gun people) have no idea how the background check system works or what its strengths and limitations are. Most figure there is some magical system in place to stop crazy people and criminals from getting weapons, which is about as sensible as politicians who think passing laws will reduce or eliminate interpersonal violence.
No you're just crazy for attending a Tea Party rally. :dirol: Its really pretty hard to accidently commit a felony. Whoops I slipped and just committed murder. Damn how did that happen?
Pat
The words, "knowingly and intentionally" come to mind when it comes to prosectiuting felonies.
I'm not sure why attending a tea party rally would put someone in the "crazy" classification, but then I don't understand how a little yellow head chewing gum relates to the post so maybe it has some bearing on the meaning.
A little bit out in tinfoil country there, don't you think?
Penalties, I mean Taxes, for breathing seemed pretty far into Tinfoil country at one time. Why not expect more crack downs?
How long until it's a Felony to not buy Obamacare/Pay the penalty? Isn't it already a Felony to not pay taxes in certain situations? (Known non-compliance of a certain amount?)
Please provide an example of a felony conviction for any of the examples cited above. Just one.
That is the point, isn't it? You and I are not felons and have no interest in breaking the law; So we don't mind passing a background check. Later on when it is abused, we might think otherwise.
No you're just crazy for attending a Tea Party rally. :dirol: Its really pretty hard to accidently commit a felony. Whoops I slipped and just committed murder. Damn how did that happen?
Pat
Whoops, you defended yourself with a firearm and the public outcry (Lead by the president and his Media) decides you should pay for your blatant cold-blooded murder and charges you with a Felony.
Whoops, the police can not protect your Neighborhood due to budget cuts. Hope you don't carry a firearm while you investigate who is cutting off your Catalytic Converter; Even if you get attacked you might just commit murder. ;)
Whoops your gun accidently fires two rounds at a range.
Whoops you have a mechanical failure of a sear (Cheap DPMS one for sure!) and your gun dumps a mag right infront of a Sheriff watching over the local shooting pit.
***
Edit: Removed thread drift.
Penalties, I mean Taxes, for breathing seemed pretty far into Tinfoil country at one time. Why not expect more crack downs?
How long until it's a Felony to not buy Obamacare/Pay the penalty? Isn't it already a Felony to not pay taxes in certain situations? (Known non-compliance of a certain amount?)
That is the point, isn't it? You and I are not felons and have no interest in breaking the law; So we don't mind passing a background check. Later on when it is abused, we might think otherwise.
Whoops, you defended yourself with a firearm and the public outcry (Lead by the president and his Media) decides you should pay for your blatant cold-blooded murder and charges you with a Felony.
Whoops, the police can not protect your Neighborhood due to budget cuts. Hope you don't carry a firearm while you investigate who is cutting off your Catalytic Converter; Even if you get attacked you might just commit murder. ;)
Whoops your gun accidently fires two rounds at a range.
Whoops you have a mechanical failure of a sear (Cheap DPMS one for sure!) and your gun dumps a mag right infront of a Sheriff watching over the local shooting pit.
***
Edit: Removed thread drift.
You may want to educate yourself on what constitutes a felony before you blather on further.
You may want to educate yourself on what constitutes a felony before you blather on further.
What constitutes a felony now, and what might constitute a felony tomorrow, are different. That's all I'm saying.
Thanks for the disrespect.
You and I are not felons and have no interest in breaking the law; So we don't mind passing a background check. Later on when it is abused, we might think otherwise.
Back to the mental health issue, this type of misinformation does not make our efforts all the more easier.
Apparently, according to the experts firearm ownerships causes the manifestation of suicidal ideation.. Pay not mind to what they were severely depressed in the first place.
I mean for ****s sake you can not make this stuff up. Obviously if we just got rid of all the guns there were be no more suicides... :rolleyes:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/02/18/mccreadys-death-highlights-role-of-guns-in-suicide/1927815/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.