[Slater]

Speaking to you Vermont folks from gun-friendly Arizona, you may find that, as more and more out of state antigunners move into Vermont, you're going to find yourselves increasingly fighting this battle. It's unfortunate and can be annoying and exhausting. The good thing is that you have such a strong pro-Second Amendment base.

Here in Arizona, we're right next to whack-job California. But I think our strong pro-gun culture horrifies them

[DauntlessDan]

Funny isn't it arctichomesteader how the media is so selective as to what they hear and report on......

[arctichomesteader]

Yeah, funny how many of our media sources made a large profit from Bloomberg's expensive ads. I'm sure there's absolutely no coincidence here.

[atlaw]

Originally Posted by cgregor

It's not a good idea to have a person known to be prone to violent impulses to have access to firearms, unless he's a member of a "well-regulated militia." There have been women and children killed in this town by their husbands and boyfriends, and depressed children in other towns who have killed themselves. If I were a firearms dealer, I'd sell anything to anyone without a moment's pause as long as I could get away with it. I could be putting your brother, sister, son or daughter at risk. Do you really want people like me to to be a gun dealer?

you could not become a dealer. and this is not about dealers anyway.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

The safest state in the union, averaging 2 gun homicides a year ( I read ) needs more gun laws?

You all should consider this proof positive that the goal isn't "gun safety"...... it doesn't get safer than VT. The goal is gun control.

Pro-gun Ohioan, I stand with you VT.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by cgregor

It's not a good idea to have a person known to be prone to violent impulses to have access to firearms, unless he's a member of a "well-regulated militia." There have been women and children killed in this town by their husbands and boyfriends, and depressed children in other towns who have killed themselves. If I were a firearms dealer, I'd sell anything to anyone without a moment's pause as long as I could get away with it. I could be putting your brother, sister, son or daughter at risk. Do you really want people like me to to be a gun dealer?

And if you were a gun dealer, you'd be spending the next ten years or so in the Federal Pen.

A gun dealer has to account for every gun from the time it comes in to their possesion, until the time it's sold.

They have to log the gun and it's serial number in to an official bound book, or rather, registry.

When someone wants to buy that gun, a National Instant Criminal Background Check, or "NICS" check, is peformed. If the would be-buyer passes that background check, the dealer is given a code to log in to their registry, which is proof that the dealer performed a background check.

A dealers records are subject to inspection, and if all the I's aren't dotted and T's aren't crossed, that dealer can lose their license and / or be subject to prosecution.

It's not as if guns aren't highly regulated in this country and in VT. With over 20,000 laws on the books, they are one of the most regulated items.

You really should know a little about our current laws, before you support the passage of more.

[cgregor]

If I were an unregistered gun dealer-- buying them for myself and selling them after I got tired of letting them lie around the house-- none of what you say would apply to me under current Vermont law. Of course, I would only sell to people who averred they were members of a "well-regulated Militia."

What this country needs is 250,000,000 firearms inspectors: every person who is the first purchaser of a weapon would be very, very careful not to let it EVER pass into the wrong hands if he/she were responsible for its use for its lifetime. The first time a grandmother goes to the electric chair because the gun she bought forty years ago and later sold to a friend was eventually used by a homicidally jealous boyfriend-- that's when gun owners will start thinking about the nature of responsible gun ownership.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by cgregor

If I were an unregistered gun dealer-- buying them for myself and selling them after I got tired of letting them lie around the house-- none of what you say would apply to me under current Vermont law. Of course, I would only sell to people who averred they were members of a "well-regulated Militia."

What this country needs is 250,000,000 firearms inspectors: every person who is the first purchaser of a weapon would be very, very careful not to let it EVER pass into the wrong hands if he/she were responsible for its use for its lifetime. The first time a grandmother goes to the electric chair because the gun she bought forty years ago and later sold to a friend was eventually used by a homicidally jealous boyfriend-- that's when gun owners will start thinking about the nature of responsible gun ownership.

No we don't need to be a police state with no right to privacy.

It's federal law you would be breaking not state law.

[cgregor]

America's problem with guns is that a lot of gun owners treat their weapons like appliances.

What knight would have entrusted his sword to a churl? What samurai would not have been ashamed to let his weapon pass into the hands of a lesser mortal?

We should treat firearms like sacraments, and those who possess them as members of a priesthood.

When they don't act like members of a priesthood, we have guns passing into the hands of bozos. That's not a smart idea.

Our problem is we have too many wannabes. Gun owners should hold themselves to a higher standard.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by cgregor

If I were an unregistered gun dealer--

No such thing......

Anyone who wants to be a "dealer", or "engage in the business" of buying and selling firearms, is required, by Federal Law, to obtain a Federal Firearms License. Anyone "engaging in the business" without obtaining said license is in violation of law.

buying them for myself and selling them after I got tired of letting them lie
around the house

So your referring to casual, private sales, generally people who sell less than 15 firearms per year, as defined by the BATFE.

Do you have any statistics showing how many criminals get their guns this way? I mean, if we're going to try and solve a problem, it may be beneficial to know what the problem is first, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, it's just a solution in search of a problem. A have some data, it's a little outdated, but it's hard to imagine the numbers have changed all that drastically. lets have a look:

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal
convicts revealed the truth:
• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member

Otherwise known as a "straw purchaser", or, someone who is likely buying a gun for someone who they know cannot legally buy one themselves. This is already a federal crime, and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The type of law being proposed in VT right now are unlikely to affect these types of transactions, as they already know they are committing a Felony, so what's one more?

• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source

I highly doubt these "illegal sources", who are already knowingly committing a litany of crimes, are likely to rush out and do a background check on their potential buyers if this law passes. What do you think? Now of course you may say, "but we need universal background checks so that these illegal sources can't get guns to sell on the street"..... Well, as I said above, these people are already committing a litany of laws and knowingly so. They get their guns by stealing them, or by purchasing themselves, intending to sell them to criminals on the black market. They are not going to conduct a background check on their criminal buyers even if this law passes.

• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased
a gun at a flea market

This is the group that comprises the people you are concerned about, the gun enthusiasts who sell a gun privately, and who can legally do so without conducting a background check. This group accounts for a grand total of 1.7% of the entire criminal market. That to me, doesn't seem like an urgent problem in need of a fix, and keep in mind that this survey was done on a national basis. When put in the context of the State of Vermont, the safest state in the nation, the numbers are probably even lower.

• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals
actually bought their guns from retail outlets

This group wouldn't be affected by the proposed law, as this group of criminals already had to pass a background check when they bought their guns. In other words, they didn't have criminal records that would have flagged them on a background check in the first place.

none of what you say would apply to me under current Vermont law.

Of course it would. A private sale is still bound and regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Even though you may not have to do a background check ( but still can, and many do ) You still can't knowingly sell to anyone who is prohibited from owning a gun.

Of course, I would only sell to people who averred they were members of a "well-regulated Militia."

The "well-regulated militia" argument is deader than dead. It was affectively debunked in the Heller decision in 2008. Go and read that decision, and then go brush up on your history. You can start with the Federalist Papers penned by our Founding Fathers. It's time you accept the fact that we have an individual Right to keep and bear arms, absent any connection to a militia. Not to mention the collective militia interpretation defies even the most basic understanding of the English language:

"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to a nutritious diet, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed"

Who has the Right? The "well-balanced breakfast"? Or the people? Insert the Second Amendment. Who has the Right? The militia? Or the people?

What this country needs is 250,000,000 firearms inspectors: every person who is
the first purchaser of a weapon would be very, very careful not to let it EVER
pass into the wrong hands if he/she were responsible for its use for its
lifetime. The first time a grandmother goes to the electric chair because the
gun she bought forty years ago and later sold to a friend was eventually used by
a homicidally jealous boyfriend-- that's when gun owners will start thinking
about the nature of responsible gun ownership.

So, using your logic, if I sell my truck tomorrow, and eventually it is driven by some drunk who plows in to a mini-van and kills a family, I, as the original owner should be held accountable for the actions of someone else? Come on, you didn't really mean to make such a ridiculous assertion did you? I'll give you a mulligan on that one.