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.
What I find ironic is some of the very same people who support Obama on this are VERY SAME who fight tooth and nail against Photo ID and use the SAME language, "If it makes it more inconvenient" and "you shouldn't have TO "Pay for a right"."The poor blacks CAN'T afford it" Hypocrites abound!
Nice try though
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
She got out of the abusive marriage and knew he was going to come after her. She applied to get a gun. In California with it's then mandatory four week waiting period, she was dead long before the waiting period was over.
You might want to double check the validity of that story: That 30 day waiting period would only kick in if it was the 2nd gun she was attempting to buy within a 30 day period. If a gun would have saved her, the first gun she bought should have done the job.
Nope I was responding to this post: Nice try though
You might want to double check the validity of that story: That 30 day waiting period would only kick in if it was the 2nd gun she was attempting to buy within a 30 day period. If a gun would have saved her, the first gun she bought should have done the job.
This happened more than 20 years ago and unless I've completely lost my mind, there was a mandatory 4 week waiting period for all firearm purchases at that time. Regardless, she was dead before the waiting period was up. If I'm wrong about how long the waiting period was at that time is kinda irrelevant. She was dead before she could get the gun she intended to defend herself with.
Maybe she would have been murdered anyways, but she never got a fighting chance.
This happened more than 20 years ago and unless I've completely lost my mind, there was a mandatory 4 week waiting period for all firearm purchases at that time. Regardless, she was dead before the waiting period was up. If I'm wrong about how long the waiting period was at that time is kinda irrelevant. She was dead before she could get the gun she intended to defend herself with. Maybe she would have been murdered anyways, but she never got a fighting chance.
No, there was never a 4 week waiting period for a firearm in California and the law allowing only one firearm purchase every 30 days became effective in 2000.
No, there was never a 4 week waiting period for a firearm in California and the law allowing only one firearm purchase every 30 days became effective in 2000.
Depends on circumstances, there are(were) situations and exemptions that permit California DOJ to take up to 30 days to complete a background check, within 10 days they have to provide a response, however that response could (although I'm not sure since the overturning of the wait period) be a delay of up to 30 days.
10 days was mandatory minimum, but it could take up to 30 to process a handgun purchase regardless of whether or not this was the first handgun owned.
Quote:
DOJ must also tell the dealer to delay the transfer of the firearm to the purchaser if DOJ is unable to determine, in any of the following scenarios, whether the purchaser is a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm: 1) the purchaser has been taken into custody and placed in a facility for mental health treatment or evaluation and may be a danger to self or others; 2) the purchaser has been arrested or charged with a crime that, if convicted, would make the person prohibited from possessing a firearm; or 3) the person may be attempting to purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period. If DOJ is unable to obtain a final disposition under any of these scenarios within 30 days of the original submission of the purchaser’s information by the dealer, then DOJ must notify the dealer and the dealer may then, at the dealer’s discretion, transfer the firearm to the purchaser.
"they seek to accomplish this by making it impossibly inconvenient to obtain the things for as many people as they possibly can"
What I find ironic is some of the very same people who support Obama on this are VERY SAME who fight tooth and nail against Photo ID and use the SAME language, "If it makes it more inconvenient" and "you shouldn't have TO "Pay for a right"."The poor blacks CAN'T afford it" yet have NO problem with denying those very same "poor blacks" from buying a gun do to the cost of doing a background check.
Not to mention how the price of firearms has SKYROCKETED ever since Bill Clinton started his so-called "assault" weapons ban talk.
Hypocrites abound!
Actually it was under Reagan. (the Brady Bill and the assault rifle bans were being created, to pass constitutional muster, by stacking the SC.)
Yes, the Great Ronald Reagan was a gun grabber, once he left office. Supporting both the Brady Bill and the 94 assault weapons ban.
The right to own a gun does not imply the right to buy it cheaply, any more than the right to pursue happiness implies any guarantee that you will actually be happy. I think that requiring a photo ID for voting is perfectly reasonable, but I would add that photo IDs can be made so cheaply now that the issuing agency could charge on a sliding scale without putting much of any burden on the agency's finances. In any case, the driving force behind gun laws is so overwhelmingly obvious that it would be sheer lunacy to derail them just because they drive up the price of guns. Just to be clear, let's list the logical components:
(1) A high percentage of crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
(2) Most Americans agree that felons should not be allowed to own guns. Even most Republicans agree that we should "disarm the thugs."
(3) If it is illegal for felons to own guns, it should also be illegal for sellers to sell guns to felons without first checking to see if they are felons. (Similar to the way businesses have to check before selling alcohol or cigs.)
Gun laws won't guarantee that a high percentage of felons will be prevented from getting hold of guns, but they do give law enforcement some legal tools that are necessary in order to catch felons in the act of trying to acquire guns. For every felon who gets caught in this way, there is a good chance that some crimes will be prevented.
An example of hypocrisy: Supporting "the war on drugs" (knowing that most drug users will find some way to get drugs), but then arguing against guns laws on the grounds that they are ineffective because criminals will always find some other way to get guns.
The only good argument against gun laws is the claim that they violate the 2nd Amendment, but as I've pointed out, no rights are absolute, so the courts need to decide where the legal limits can be drawn.
Nice post, I guess, but, it has NOTHING to do with what I said.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 01-18-2016 at 06:21 AM..
The biggest problem with gun-control systems is that they are built to be too complex and annoying for most people. I live in Chicago-land and here's the path for me to get and carry a gun:
To get a gun in the first place,you have to apply for a FOID (Firearms Owner's Identification) card, valid for 10 years. Requirements:
A Valid Driver’s License or State Identification card.
A head and shoulder electronic photograph taken within the last 30 days.
$10.00 payable with a credit card or electronic check.
The state of Illinois has 30 days to approve or deny your FOID application.
Okay, you've crossed the first hurdle. Until the SCOTUS struck down the Illinois prohibition against concealed carry, both concealed and open carry were illegal. So I guess that you could legally own a gun, but couldn't actually take it anywhere. Anyways, now that that nonsense is done away with, the next step in your journey is to get a Concealed Carry Permit. Here's what you need to do:
Pay $150 if you're an Illinois resident or $300 if you're not for your CCL.
Pass a background check of course.
You must be 21 years old.
You have to submit your fingerprints at a licensed Illinois live scan vendor or law enforcement agency. I'm not sure what the cost is.
Successfully complete a 16 hour firearms training course. Costs for classes vary between $150-$400 and up.
The State of Illinois now has 90 days to either approve or deny your application.
Okay so how would that work out for a friend of mine who was killed by her ex? She got out of the abusive marriage and knew he was going to come after her. She applied to get a gun. In California with it's then mandatory four week waiting period, she was dead long before the waiting period was over. But here in Illinois, she'd have been left waiting even longer: Four months! You jump through a bunch of hoops and then you're stuck waiting for four months. And you could be out as much as $710 before you even spend a dime on the actual gun. Average low-end handgun cost = $600.
Total cost of gun ownership?
Handing your prints to the government and submitting to an extensive background check.
Jumping through a lot of hoops and filling out a ton of forms.
Spend a couple days in a training class.
Four months waiting.
$310 - $710
The cost of the actual gun.
You'll have to renew your FOID every 10 years and your CCL every 5 years, so you'll have to pay $10 plus $150-300 once again.
Yeah, a lot of people who would like to be able to protect themselves won't bother. Too much time, hassle and money.
In NC you are required to PAY for a psyche report from the state stating that you have no record of "mental" issues.
Your CCL is good for ONLY 5 years and you HAVE pay to get it renewed PLUS the psyche report.
Actually it was under Reagan. (the Brady Bill and the assault rifle bans were being created, to pass constitutional muster, by stacking the SC.)
Yes, the Great Ronald Reagan was a gun grabber, once he left office. Supporting both the Brady Bill and the 94 assault weapons ban.
I have NO IDEA what point you are (feebly) attempting to make.
"Actually it was under Reagan."
"The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act"
"It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993"
" by stacking the SC" What President has NOT tried to do that.
To MOST intelligent people, it makes sense to appoint people to the courts who agree with your positions.
Why in the world would you ever appoint someone who is AGAINST your positions?
"Yes, the Great Ronald Reagan was a gun grabber, once he left office. Supporting both the Brady Bill and the 94 assault weapons ban" Who cares?
You obviously have some fetish about Reagan.
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.
Anyways, now that that nonsense is done away with, the next step in your journey is to get a Concealed Carry Permit. Here's what you need to do: 
