Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"don't require it" are the key words. Some people when selling actually choose to have the transaction go through an FFL. I sold three firearms last year, all went through an FFL. I don't want to be responsible for selling a firearm to a felon.
They don’t, at least in Fl. But sales, or purchases, that falls into a different category and is not protected by the constitution. Is there something I might have missed, that says I have a right to buy or sell, exchange for money, etc. any type of weaponry ?
Owning or carrying has nothing to do with purchasing.
No... sorry but that's not correct.
The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase a gun. One can't exercise their right to bear arms if they're unable to acquire an arm. You're trying to split hairs to achieve a political goal and it's embarrassing to see. If your idea were valid, then all the arguments over age limits for purchases would be moot, wouldn't they.
They don’t, at least in Fl. But sales, or purchases, that falls into a different category and is not protected by the constitution. Is there something I might have missed, that says I have a right to buy or sell, exchange for money, etc. any type of weaponry ?
I see you are a proponent of trickery that sidesteps the spirit and intent of law. Guns are fine, you just can't buy them. Or guns are fine, but ammo is outlawed. Why don't you go for the time-honored leftist trick of renaming something and then outlawing THAT? Fyrearms aren't guaranteed by the constitution after all. Just contact your friends over at Merrium Webster.
the background checks are not the problem, in fact it was the NRA who funded a study back in the 90s with IBM to use a certain system to return the data nationwide in seconds, from a system that has like a 99.996% availability since the 1960s. (the argument why it didnt work out was published that the OS in question did not have a posix compliant file system - which was a red herring, Bill Clinton did not want to implement comprehensive background checks....period.)
BUT, the right side offers background checks and agency integration to avoid the all too familiar cases of 'xxx' being on the radar with agency 1, and no one spoke up.
The left on the other hand, wants to incorporate background checks to use social credit, even BEFORE social credit was a thing and the left ALWAYS ties the checks in with full spectrum registration and in most cases, selective banning.
Just implementing what the right wants, pulls the majority of legally obtained problems off the street.
NEITHER set of ideas has any effect on illegally obtained things since they come across the southern border in greater numbers than fentanyl.
The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase a gun. One can't exercise their right to bear arms if they're unable to acquire an arm. You're trying to split hairs to achieve a political goal and it's embarrassing to see. If your idea were valid, then all the arguments over age limits for purchases would be moot, wouldn't they.
There’s laws limiting purchases of certain guns or weapons.some of those laws expired. Yes? Or it is the manufacture for public sale? I’m not sure. But I know there are limits and they vary from state to state. The whole 21 thing or 18, or minor. A person is a person. There are rules, or limitations and they seem to center around “sale or purchase “ I’m going to go to ATF and see what I can find.
Just curious… I read the kid in NM had an arsenal at his disposal at home, parents say had mental illness.
Owning or carrying has nothing to do with purchasing. Really. If you posses some small drug , get a misdemeanor, if you are selling it, it’s a diff charge.
I own a gun, was given to me. But just saying about the rule of law. Just like bullets. They don’t have to sell bullets.
Rather they do for the USSC has ruled on that.......guns without bullets are not arms.
In any event, a lot of this comes back that if we agree to this, then it is good and that's it? But we know that the other side will keep coming back for more and it is not a compromise when we give up and they give up nothing. Why wouldn't a reasonable citizen?........because we don't trust the other side anymore.
EDIT: The removal of rights should only happen thru due process.....but so often, they try to negate rights with rules, laws,....and lists.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 05-19-2023 at 09:39 AM..
There is no way to enforce background checks on private sales. It is impossible.
It can be done if you have a registry. That's the goal for "universal background checks" - it has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. The gun control industry relies on increasing violent crime rates to thrive. Their ultimate goal is complete disarmament. Everything they suggest works toward that ultimate goal. A registry is a necessary component of any disarmament plan, so they're pushing hard to get a registry in place by any means necessary.
Rather they do for the USSC has ruled on that.......guns without bullets are not arms.
In any event, a lot of this comes back that if we agree to this, then it is good and that's it? But we know that the other side will keep coming back for more and it is not a compromise when we give up and they give up nothing. Why wouldn't a reasonable citizen?........because we don't trust the other side anymore.
That's the biggest issue for me now.
Every new gun law/restriction for the last 20+ years has been touted as "the absolute last gun law we need". That is, until a couple years pass and another "absolute last gun law we need" is introduced.
And for years we gun owners went along, sometimes grudgingly, but we went along. It's now come to the point that many are now saying "No more. We've agreed and compromised for decades and every time something else comes up for restrictions".
Just like in Maryland several years ago. AR platforms were put on the restricted list and were promised to be the "absolute last restriction". That law hadn't been in force for more than a couple weeks than (Democratic) Legislators from both Houses published a notice of intent to introduce legislation placing semi-automatic and pump shotguns on the restricted roster. That has gone nowhere, yet, but will eventually get passed.
Just the other day our new Governor signed legislation, in response to the recent Supreme Court rulings, that restricts where CCW holders can carry so restrictive that it's practically a ban in addition to increasing both the cost (doubled) and length of training need to secure a CCW or purchase a restricted firearm.
But they're the "very last laws we need".
Now, the people responsible for about 99.99% of shootings in this state can't pass the background checks needed to legally buy a gun or secure a CCW so neither of these laws will have any impact on them.
Last edited by North Beach Person; 05-19-2023 at 09:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
