JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Well.... It is good they admit it didn't do anything. Now if they would just admit that if it was enforced it still wouldn't do anything.:rolleyes:
 
This has got to be liberal logic. The criteria they use for determining if implementing mandatory background checks was successful was whether or not the number of background checks increased. What about whether or not it actually had an impact on crime? :rolleyes:
 
This has got to be liberal logic. The criteria they use for determining if implementing mandatory background checks was successful was whether or not the number of background checks increased. What about whether or not it actually had an impact on crime? :rolleyes:

Considering I'm still inundated at work, I would say crimes are being committed at a decent pace. BUT, every homicide results in at least ONE officer making a snide i594 remark.
 
Murder is still illegal, no matter how you do it.

I always thought deadly weapon enhancements were funny. If I had to get offed by someone, a deadly weapon would likely be preferable to someone's bare hands.

Yeah, the "tools" people choose will always be available, whether acquired lawfully or not.
 
I wonder why it is so hard for the liberal brain to grasp that people who are intent on doing harm don't care what words a group of people got together and wrote on paper (and called it law)

I think the vast majority of the "good folk of Washington" complied with the law. I did. I quit selling guns privately and bought all my new and used stuff at a FFL. They turned selling stuff into such a pain in the bubblegum that I just quit doing it. So they won there. It did what it was designed to do I suppose which is making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to follow the law while doing absolutely nothing to stop the free movement of illegally purchased firearms.

It is so nice to be in Idaho and treated like an adult who can make decisions without a group of pansy bubblegum nanny's telling you whats best for you (at least when it comes to firearms)
 
They turned selling stuff into such a pain in the bubblegum that I just quit doing it. So they won there. It did what it was designed to do I suppose which is making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to follow the law while doing absolutely nothing to stop the free movement of illegally purchased firearms.

This is so very true.
The law also drove prices of used guns up....gone are the days of $75-$150 .22 rifles and shotguns.*
I used to enjoy walking around the gun shows and finding a .22 rifle or shotgun that needed a little TLC...fixing it up , playing with it for a year or two , then trading it , for a new project gun.

The law has ended that fun pastime for me at least.
Around here , the extra FFL fee and the hassle of just finding a FFL has put crimp on the budget gun / project gun market...sigh.
Andy
*Edit to add:
As a general rule...
 
Last Edited:
This has got to be liberal logic. The criteria they use for determining if implementing mandatory background checks was successful was whether or not the number of background checks increased. What about whether or not it actually had an impact on crime? :rolleyes:

lets look at what Everytown has to say...
Background Checks - EverytownResearch.org

Since enacted they have blocked over 3 million sales to people with felony convictions, domestic abusers, fugitives, and other people prohibited by law from having guns.1


note 1 led me to a broken link which stated everytown obtained studies from 2013-14, and 2015-16 was directly from the FBI

3 million denials in 3 years. This means, to everytown... 3 million prohibited persons trying to LEGALLY obtain firearms. o_O
 
I didn't see anything in the everytown research about people challenging the initial denial. I sold a gun to a guy who initially failed due to a name issue. A call to the state while at the shop and 20 minutes later a legal gun transfer.

Again the anti rights side continues to label gun owners as 100% wanna be murders. Are driver's license holders 100% wanna be drunk drivers? By the way, you are more likely to be killed by one of those.
 
lets look at what Everytown has to say...
Background Checks - EverytownResearch.org




3 million denials in 3 years. This means, to everytown... 3 million prohibited persons trying to LEGALLY obtain firearms. o_O

It doesn't mean anything like that. I have had 5 deny's in the last 7 years. I know several other people who are not prohibited persons who also occasionally get deny's

From the research I did something approaching half of all people who fill out a 4473 and are given a deny are not prohibited persons but rather just folks who have some bad info or a mistake in their FBI file. It is virtually impossible to get an FBI file updated. I had several attornies work at it for about 7 years at a cost of over $25,000. I was told several times that they had got it sorted out... Only to get another deny shorty after.

In my case if they do an in-depth background check I have never had a problem. I have carry cards in three states and two dozen NFA items and never had a lick of trouble with those.

What happens on a simple 4473 though is that the "investigator" has a crushing workload. What happens is if they cant "prove" that you are good in a few minutes of looking they simply deny the transaction. Its the simplest thing for them to do, there is no recourse and its totally anonymous on their end. You cant ask questions, you cant ask why. All you can do is appeal (which I have always done and always got it overturned but is a huge pain in the bubblegum. The worst one of mine took 18 months and was denied twice (first appeal was denied) It finally took a letter from an Idaho supreme court judge and a sitting house representative (both friends of my high priced attorney) and the threat of a lawsuit to get them to reverse it. That $250 .22 ended up costing me about $7500 by the time it was all said and done.

Anyway, the statistics that I have seen show around 40% of deny's are not prohibited persons. And think about it. Why would someone who knows they cant pass a background check do one? It makes no sense.


The way the system works is there are millions of people who are legitimately prohibited persons who can pass a check because the info never got added into the system and there are millions of people who are not prohibited that for some reason or another get denied..... And all of it is done behind closed doors with no oversight and no reasonable ability to question the all mighty government if something is incorrect.
 
Yup, laws don't work very well for those that choose to break them.
That's not exactly True. Look at all the restrictions being placed on honest Gun owners and don't you think the crooks are looking to use those restrictions as another place to rob?
 
Again the anti rights side continues to label gun owners as 100% wanna be murders. Are driver's license holders 100% wanna be drunk drivers? By the way, you are more likely to be killed by one of those.

The vehicle parallel is a common argument against gun control, but it doesn't work. We require certain basic safety standards to drive a car: vision test, knowledge test, skills test, and mandatory insurance (which, by the way, also gets ignored a lot, yet no one screams that we shouldn't have mandatory insurance laws). We do not require any of this for a firearm, yet both a firearm and a vehicle are deadly in the wrong hands.

There may be plenty of valid arguments on why universal background checks or gun control doesn't work, but this isn't one of them.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top