Week in review

[HALL85]

fwiw - Someone added me to an NRA e-mail list years ago and I've never removed myself since it is interesting to see how they talk to their members.

This is why I hate the NRA. This group prevents anything from happening. Just received this e-mail. Bold emphasis is theirs.


"In the wake of an atrocious act of premeditated murder, an organized effort to bully legislators into passing legislation to hijack your Second Amendment rights is underway.


The gun control faction is out in full force, determined to use the senseless murder of the students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as an excuse to promote their gun ban agenda.


Numerous gun control proposals that have been mentioned include:


1.) Waiting periods on long guns
2.) Raising age limits on the purchase of long guns
3.) Age limits on possession of semi-automatic rifles
4.) Ban of so-called “assault weapons”
5.) Ban of “bump-stocks”
6.) Removing the exemption for concealed weapons license holders from the existing waiting period on handguns

Please email or call your legislators IMMEDIATELY and ask them to focus on fixing our broken mental health system and improving school security, not punishing law-abiding gun owners because of the act of a deranged criminal.

Please EMAIL the following members of the Legislature IMMEDIATELY and tell them NO GUN CONTROL. Urge them to provide armed security in schools and tighten mental health laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: GUN CONTROL Won’t Protect our Children"

This shouldn’t surprise you. When confronted with a hostile media, any organization is going to ask they are members to take the most extreme positions. No different than what the NJEA does.

Just heard a stat on the radio this afternoon. 2000 drug related deaths just in New Jersey last year, up 40% from the year before. Let those numbers sink in. Not saying we should not focus on the gun violence issue, but these numbers are staggering. What’s even worse, is that we are still in the hockey stick trend. These numbers will get far worse over the next 3 to 5 years.

 

[SPK145]

During the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there was no standing army. Thus, State militias were necessary for the protection of the State. The right to bear arms was really for the militias. The Founding Fathers has an inherent distrust of Standing Armies.

Section 2 of Article II talks about the Army, the Navy, and the Militia as separate items.

Also, you can't have a militia without the people having guns.

There is no question that assault weapons can and should be banned. There is no purpose except to kill numerous amounts of people. The AR-15 is really an M-16, except it is semi-auto instead of auto. The right of the people do not and should not include this weapon. If the people have the right to bear arms, it is for self-defense of the home and hunting. Those are the type of weapons that should be limited for individual ownership.

The definition of "assault weapons" is based more on cosmetics than firepower. An AR-15 is very similar to many hunting rifles. Many guns not fitting the "assault weapons" definition have more firepower than the AR-15. The Constitution makes no mention of self-defense and hunting, that is purely your opinion.

Moreover, there must be a tracking and registration of all firearms. A federal system or database should track a weapon from manufacturer to the buyer of that firearm and track the subsequent transfer of that weapon. Failure to register or failure to register a transfer should be criminalized. We need a tracking system so guns do not disappear and fall into the wrong hands.

I have no problem with that, wish they did that with Fast and Furious.

Also, there must be a background check for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm. I have no idea why this is even an issue. No more gun show sales, or person to person sales that skirt around any of these requirements. This preserves gun ownership and restricts gun ownership to those who rightfully register to purchase and use firearms.

I have no problem with that either except there is no gun show loophole. Please go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. Won't happen.

Will all of this prevent people from being killed? No. But it should help reduce the amount of people being killed in the US.

When you peel it back, these measures would have little to no effect on gun deaths in the U.S. as very few are killed in these mass shootings but they get the most headlines. Where is the tally on lives saved by lawful gun owners? How come the vast majority of gun deaths happen in the cities with the most gun control laws?

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Also, there must be a background check for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm. I have no idea why this is even an issue.

It's an issue solely b/c the NRA has turned mostly into a strident lobby for the gun manufacturers. That is their principal purpose. They get a TON of money from the gun companies, and they in turn bribe a metric ton of our corrupt politicians to be against ANY restrictions on our current outdated and ineffective gun laws. The Republicans and several Dems serve at the behest of gun lobby b/c they bankroll almost all their campaigns. I honestly don't know how they live with themselves. It's disgusting and should be illegal.

They see background checks as resulting in far less gun sales, and therefore they attempt to table all discussion of those checks despite something like 85-95% of people agreeing they should be stricter/better. Like everything else, it's just about the money. Blood money, in this case.

 

[Pirata]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-lobby-deals-as-boycott-movement-gains-steam/

 

[cernjSHU]

Section 2 of Article II talks about the Army, the Navy, and the Militia as separate items.

Also, you can't have a militia without the people having guns.



The definition of "assault weapons" is based more on cosmetics than firepower. An AR-15 is very similar to many hunting rifles. Many guns not fitting the "assault weapons" definition have more firepower than the AR-15. The Constitution makes no mention of self-defense and hunting, that is purely your opinion.



I have no problem with that, wish they did that with Fast and Furious.



I have no problem with that either except there is no gun show loophole. Please go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. Won't happen.



When you peel it back, these measures would have little to no effect on gun deaths in the U.S. as very few are killed in these mass shootings but they get the most headlines. Where is the tally on lives saved by lawful gun owners? How come the vast majority of gun deaths happen in the cities with the most gun control laws?

I actually believe a national data base that tracks where a firearm is from the date of manufacture to sales and subsequent transfers is the most important aspect. The criminal penalties that would follow for failure to do so and the civil liablity that would surely follow should help.

The question then becomes, what about guns already out there. Those guns must be registered and tracked as well. If not, there should be criminal penalties that when someone gets caught possession a firearm, not only do you get a sentence for that unlawful possession, a mandatory non registered firearm wil have a mandatory consecutive jail time.

In NJ, unlawful possession is 5 years with a 3 year parole disqualifier. If you have it u registered, it’s an additional five with a five for a handgun. So that’s a 10 year sentence with an 8 year parole disqualifier.

Also I think annual or biannual registration of firearms should be done.

 

[SPK145]

I have no problem with any of that. See cern, we can agree.

That kind of regulation in no way infringes on anyone's right to own guns. Doesn't really solve gun crimes either but it's just common sense.

 

[Merge]

I have no problem with that either except there is no gun show loophole. Please go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. Won't happen.

Can you clarify that?

My understanding of the "loophole" is that in most states, (apart from the northeast) someone can call themselves a "hobbyist" and sell guns without requiring a license - circumventing background check restrictions.

That said, I have no understanding of the magnitude of how often that happens. I would assume it is rare.

I believe around 20% of gun sales occur with no background check? Probably more accurate to describe it as a private party loophole.

 

[SPK145]

I believe around 20% of gun sales occur with no background check? Probably more accurate to describe it as a private party loophole.

That's seems right, almost all gun transfers without background checks are between private parties or inheritance.

The duplicitous, lying politicians use that term to wrongly stir up your emotions.

 

[knowknow456]

So all transfers at gun shows are subject to a background check?

 

[Merge]

So all transfers at gun shows are subject to a background check?

In some states they are.
In some they are not.

There isn't really a "gun show loophole" - There is a loophole which allows "hobbyists" to bring and sell guns at gun shows(in most, but not all states) ... like they could do outside of a gun show.

Again,I personally would not expect this to be a quantitatively significant number... but... I think we should remove the loophole which allows anyone obtaining a firearm without having a background check. In my opinion, guns should be required to be registered

 

[SPK145]

In some states they are.
In some they are not.

There isn't really a "gun show loophole" - There is a loophole which allows "hobbyists" to bring and sell guns at gun shows(in most, but not all states) ... like they could do outside of a gun show.

Again,I personally would not expect this to be a quantitatively significant number... but... I think we should remove the loophole which allows anyone obtaining a firearm without having a background check. In my opinion, guns should be required to be registered

It's very small number but I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[knowknow456]

Again,I personally would not expect this to be a quantitatively significant number...

Are there any organizations that attempt to quantify that number?

 

[knowknow456]

In some states they are.
In some they are not.

"Please go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. Won't happen. "

Is this a true statement or not?

 

[Merge]

"Please go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. Won't happen. "

Is this a true statement or not?

You would have to drive a good distance to find one, but I am certain if you made it your life's mission to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check, you could eventually do it... it would probably take a while though.

 

[knowknow456]

You would have to drive a good distance to find one, but I am certain if you made it your life's mission to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check, you could eventually do it... it would probably take a while though.

So the answer is I can go to a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. It just may not be convenient for me to do so.

As I understand the law - Firearms dealers are required to register with the Federal government. There is no uniform and corresponding state law. Some states have stricter laws but about 25 states do not require a firearms dealer to register at all in their states.

Therefore, in a state that does not have a registration requirement, a firearms dealer can go to his place of business during the week, then go to a gun show on the weekend - not as a firearms dealer - but as a "hobbyist". In most states "hobbyists" are not required to perform background checks.

The fringe right will try to fire up your emotions by calling anyone who uses the word "loophole" as duplicitous and lying. I say states should follow the federal rule - firearms dealers need to be registered in the state they do business. If they attend a gun show, they should present themselves as firearms dealers and not as hobbyists.

 

[cernjSHU]

Virginia is the State I hear most about the ease of obtaining a gun without background checks. There is no requirement for a background check for unlicensed sellers. I think a new law went into affect making it voluntary. Apparently, there are quite a few unlicensed sellers at these gun shows. Word on the street is guys from NJ go down to Virginia to get their guns.

 

[SPK145]

As I understand the law - Firearms dealers are required to register with the Federal government. There is no uniform and corresponding state law. Some states have stricter laws but about 25 states do not require a firearms dealer to register at all in their states.

Therefore, in a state that does not have a registration requirement, a firearms dealer can go to his place of business during the week, then go to a gun show on the weekend - not as a firearms dealer - but as a "hobbyist". In most states "hobbyists" are not required to perform background checks.

Nope.

Federal law:

Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show within their state.

 

[Merge]

Nope.

Federal law:

Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show within their state.

I think this conversation is getting a bit nitpicky.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/05/15/south-holland-man-gets-nearly-17-years-for-illegal-gun-deals/

That guy was driving from Chicago to buy guns at Indiana gun show from people who did not require background checks.
He would buy multiple guns from multiple dealers at each show and bring them back to Chicago to sell.

The illegal part was reselling them... not the purchase of them without a background check.

Can we all just agree that he should not have been able to purchase them in the first place?

 

[knowknow456]

I think this conversation is getting a bit nitpicky.

Perhaps I am being nitpicky but I am l looking to make one large and one small point.

Large point - Gun control - whatever that is - is a state issue first. As was helpfully pointed out elsewhere, "Federal law mandates Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show within their state"

Unfortunately, in states that do not have comparable licensing laws, Federal enforcement is exceedingly difficult. State cooperation is very important.

So my small point is simply that 25 (or so) states have licensing laws for Firearms dealers. I see no reason why the other 25 states don't follow what the Federal government already requires.

 

[SPK145]

So my small point is simply that 25 (or so) states have licensing laws for Firearms dealers. I see no reason why the other 25 states don't follow what the Federal government already requires.

Me neither, makes good sense AND doesn't unduly infringe on anyone's rights to own guns.

 

[Merge]

Perhaps I am being nitpicky but I am l looking to make one large and one small point.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend or anything. Just thought everyone here ultimately was agreeing on how this could/should be addressed going forward.