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.
Federal Form 4473 is NOT used for firearm purchases in Nevada???
You have little understanding of federal laws. When you purchase a firearm new or used from a Federal Firearms Dealer you will fill out a 4473 form even in Nevada. The form is kept by the dealer and if the firearm is recovered the serial number can be traced by calling the manufacture and so forth. The form you fill out has some questions if you answered those questions untruthfully then you committed a felony.
In many states you can buy a used gun (Private party transfer) like buying a knife from someone without a 4473 that's not from a dealer. There's still federal and state laws even private party sales have to follow. Such as your not allowed to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who lives out of state. You can't knowingly transfer a firearm to a minor this is what Kyle Rittenhouse's friend was charged with.
Most people are charged of breaking these laws after they are caught for something else this is why they rarely have any affect on shootings. They added the background checking although many who are turned away were prosecuted also committed felonies. I have seen this first hand as I worked in a gun store saw where people lied on background check paper work rejected by the instant check and were back again 6 months later doing it again only to be rejected again.
The question is will further controls placed on firearms make a difference well recently we had a workplace shooting that took the lives of 6 people in California a state which has some of the strictest gun control in the nation. If California is not able to stop "Mass shootings" with all the control they have how is it that a few more laws on the federal side is going to change much. The fact that federal laws are not even enforced such as NICS background checks such as the Texas mass shooting in a church turned out to be a felon who had been dishonorable discharged. Yet that information never updated NICS. Maybe if they just enforced the laws they have now maybe there would be some changes.
Nothing new here folks. Democrats have been trying to disarm law abiding people for decades. They want to ensure only violent criminals are armed. Can't have criminals getting hurt now by their intended victims, can we?
So mentally ill people must always be allowed to keep their guns until they have proven they really want to blow your head off? After all, mentally ill people because of who they are need guns to defend their lives even more than normal people. That is precisely why Red Flag laws must not be allowed to prevail? You must first prove you want to unjustly shoot people before the law can act to take your guns away.
So mentally ill people must always be allowed to keep their guns until they have proven they really want to blow your head off? After all, mentally ill people because of who they are need guns to defend their lives even more than normal people. That is precisely why Red Flag laws must not be allowed to prevail? You must first prove you want to unjustly shoot people before the law can act to take your guns away.
ANd every law abiding person that respects the safety and responsibility of having a lethal weapon will tell you They HAVE every right to protect their perception of a threat (real or not) . So bug off is the motto!
I personally think some folks who even claim to be responsible in gun safety and law are NOT.
It is concerning that Uncle Fred can hand Cousin Bob a gun knowing Bob just finished his ten year sentence for a felony. But if Bob went to a Legitimate dealer, He'd have to fill out forms and most likely be denied.
So technically these so called "reasonable" relatives aren't so rational in public safety.
My grandDad was a warden. He was required to have a gun. When he left that position, he didn't have one on his person or in his home. Guess he had other means to thwart off the hoodlums. He survived 35 years after leaving the wardens office. Seen and dealt with the good, bad, and the ugly. Guess some folks can respect weapons and do so without owning em.
ANd every law abiding person that respects the safety and responsibility of having a lethal weapon will tell you They HAVE every right to protect their perception of a threat (real or not) . So bug off is the motto!
I personally think some folks who even claim to be responsible in gun safety and law are NOT.
It is concerning that Uncle Fred can hand Cousin Bob a gun knowing Bob just finished his ten year sentence for a felony. But if Bob went to a Legitimate dealer, He'd have to fill out forms and most likely be denied.
So technically these so called "reasonable" relatives aren't so rational in public safety.
My grandDad was a warden. He was required to have a gun. When he left that position, he didn't have one on his person or in his home. Guess he had other means to thwart off the hoodlums. He survived 35 years after leaving the wardens office. Seen and dealt with the good, bad, and the ugly. Guess some folks can respect weapons and do so without owning em.
In the US, once a person completes their sentence in its entirety, they can no longer be referred to or treated like a 'Felon'. This is one of the major principles of the US system of justice.
What some people (that believe it should be the opposite), is ONCE a person commits a felony...they NEVER again have the right to defend themselves, their family or their property using a firearm! (that is NOT the US system of Justice)...
You have to wonder...if these people consider someone a felon (FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES)...why do they even let them out of prison?! If they will always be a felon and never again have their rights, why release them from prison? If they are not safe enough to have their rights, what makes them safe enough to be out of prison? LOL
You have little understanding of federal laws. When you purchase a firearm new or used from a Federal Firearms Dealer you will fill out a 4473 form even in Nevada. The form is kept by the dealer and if the firearm is recovered the serial number can be traced by calling the manufacture and so forth. The form you fill out has some questions if you answered those questions untruthfully then you committed a felony.
In many states you can buy a used gun (Private party transfer) like buying a knife from someone without a 4473 that's not from a dealer. There's still federal and state laws even private party sales have to follow. Such as your not allowed to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who lives out of state. You can't knowingly transfer a firearm to a minor this is what Kyle Rittenhouse's friend was charged with.
Most people are charged of breaking these laws after they are caught for something else this is why they rarely have any affect on shootings. They added the background checking although many who are turned away were prosecuted also committed felonies. I have seen this first hand as I worked in a gun store saw where people lied on background check paper work rejected by the instant check and were back again 6 months later doing it again only to be rejected again.
The question is will further controls placed on firearms make a difference well recently we had a workplace shooting that took the lives of 6 people in California a state which has some of the strictest gun control in the nation. If California is not able to stop "Mass shootings" with all the control they have how is it that a few more laws on the federal side is going to change much. The fact that federal laws are not even enforced such as NICS background checks such as the Texas mass shooting in a church turned out to be a felon who had been dishonorable discharged. Yet that information never updated NICS. Maybe if they just enforced the laws they have now maybe there would be some changes.
Texas most certainly uses the NICS system when purchasing firearms. The only time a NICS check is not done at an FFL dealer is if you possess a current LTC (License to Carry). I have seen someone come up with a denial on NICS, meaning they cannot possess a firearm.
......My grandDad was a warden. He was required to have a gun. When he left that position, he didn't have one on his person or in his home. Guess he had other means to thwart off the hoodlums. He survived 35 years after leaving the wardens office. Seen and dealt with the good, bad, and the ugly. Guess some folks can respect weapons and do so without owning em.
Well, maybe he had other ways than guns for his safety, such as maybe a counter strike contract of some sort out for him.......or maybe he was tired of this world so when the time came, he was ready to leave it.
A and B.
A: Just because his methods worked for him does not mean it should be the deciding factor for everyone, and especially not when we have the Constitution.
B: Here and there in time, I've had the potential to be on this or that person's list for a strike, be it relatives for inheritance, a gang initiation target, or somewhat in shoes like those of Kelly Johnson. That is to the latter, Kelly Johnson, the creator of the SR-71, said in his autobiography that he slept with a gun handy for he considered the possibility of being kidnapped by Warsaw Pact types to be a reasonable possibility.
I don't design Mach 3+ aircraft but I am in a position of trust and access and further, there are lots of people in this country who are. Should they not have the ability to defend themselves?
In any answer, however, mine is basic; should someone decide they want to push such points with me, it is not going to be inexpensive for them.
Keep in mind that when leftist do-gooders say they want only a few more "reasonable restrictions" on guns, it's because the restrictions they imposed last year didn't work. Crime and mass shootings continue merrily along, and even increase. And so now they want to impose a few more regulations and restrictions. And when those don't work, next year a few more. The only scheme that does work, is complete confiscation of all of the people's guns, followed by regular house-to-house searches.
And that's exactly what they are gradually working their way up to, one small piece at a time. Actually only total confiscation and repeated nationwide sweeps of homes, have any chance of actually working.... at the price of leaving the majority of the populace completely vulnerable to the predations of criminals. Amazingly, the gun-control pushers are actually trying to fool people into believing that it's an acceptable government option.
So-called "gun control" laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. And they aren't the ones causing the problem.
"Reasonable restrictions" "Common sense" Neither reason nor common sense figures into what the neo Dems want in terms of firearms rights. They spout off with ridiculous terminology regarding firearms like "semiautomatic revolver" comment on certain accessory items like muzzle brakes as "only suitable for military use" talk absolute nonsense about ammunition for rifles like the AR 15 as being "capable of firing military ammunition" as if military ammunition for small arms has some superior destructive quality when the exact opposite is the truth. (They never heard of the Hauge Accords) It's so damned RIDICULOUS.
(sigh) I've given up arguing with them. Have better comprehension from the railroad tie corner set on my horse pen.
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.
