Trump calls for background checks

[csa_ap_hill]

thoughtcrime will become true if that passes.
yeah I almost stay offline now due to personal reasons but yeah
1984 is coming truer than ever.

 

[Boss]

^^

'To develop a national strategy....and for other purposes.'??

'concerning behavior'??

'...that indicate a[n]...capability...??

I notice there appear to be no appointees from the gun owners' side...

Would certainly appear to be a new 'watch list'?

Definitely will drive folks of forums like this...further silencing...

Pretty shady...

Boss

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[forefathersrback]

wow yikes
and (D) an elementary school or secondary school;
taken two ways they will target elementary school kids or they will investigate a person back that far or both?

They have been targeting school children for a long time. 20+yrs ago, my son got into a fight at a junior high school dance. My bride called me to tell me that our son was being arrested for fighting. I was there in Talladega time! I walked into the school like I owned it, { well I kinda do} I told the LEO, "Your not taking my son anywhere, If so, I goddamn well guarantee your taking us both in tonight." To which he replied, " No, he's just being ticketed ". My reply, " fare enough." Fast forward to 2019, my 13 yr old grandson got into a schoolmate rumble this year. If he gets into any trouble for the next 5yrs, he will receive a felony assault. { and the irony of it all, is that he was protecting a special needs student from being bullied.) Go figure! Myself as a young kid got into plenty of rumbles, you know, fights. It's what boys used to do, problem solved. Boys will be boys, does not apply in 2019, and beyond! Back in my day, you just kicked out of school, for a few days. Then back to normal.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

They have been targeting school children for a long time. 20+yrs ago, my son got into a fight at a junior high school dance. My bride called me to tell me that our son was being arrested for fighting. I was there in Talladega time! I walked into the school like I owned it, { well I kinda do} I told the LEO, "Your not taking my son anywhere, If so, I goddamn well guarantee your taking us both in tonight." To which he replied, " No, he's just being ticketed ". My reply, " fare enough." Fast forward to 2019, my 13 yr old grandson got into a schoolmate rumble this year. If he gets into any trouble for the next 5yrs, he will receive a felony assault. { and the irony of it all, is that he was protecting a special needs student from being bullied.) Go figure! Myself as a young kid got into plenty of rumbles, you know, fights. It's what boys used to do, problem solved. Boys will be boys, does not apply in 2019, and beyond!

ticketed for fighting? wow. I never got ticketed for it and had a few myself. Never got hacked either and could of but just had to apologize to the kid I was fighting with. and he gets a felony assault? you're fricking kidding I hope? and five years? really wow. and they say in all their commercials about bullying is to get involved and not just sit there. wow! Hypocrites.

 

[forefathersrback]

ticketed for fighting? wow. I never got ticketed for it and had a few myself. Never got hacked either and could of but just had to apologize to the kid I was fighting with. and he gets a felony assault? you're fricking kidding I hope? and five years? really wow. and they say in all their commercials about bullying is to get involved and not just sit there. wow! Hypocrites.

Hypocrites indeed, that was my thought also. I'm not joking at all. I told my grandson, stay out of ANY trouble son! It's all part of the "pussifacation" of America. These young kids do not stand a chance against the system!

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Hypocrites indeed, that was my thought also. I'm not joking at all. I told my grandson, stay out of ANY trouble son! It's all part of the "pussifacation" of America. These young kids do not stand a chance against the system!

wow! last time I got into trouble I was deferred, and then only had to stay out of trouble for a year and that was for only a misdemeanor not any kind of felony.
These kinds of things are why I oppose felon in possession laws for just how easy it's becoming to have a felony on our records. .
These red-flag laws play into these bills hands hook line and sinker.
I first bought my first gun there were no background checks just the 4473. Next Clinton got it along with the NRA's help insta checks. then misdemeanor domestic violence and the drug questions which were part of the original 4473's and now god knows what. It's been a few years since I filled out one so don't know what's on there now. I hear it's your medical records and more but don't know so... OMFG

 

[Talos32]

So sure? it's on a federal supreme court case, not just the state. if I could remember the case id link it here, but I know at the supreme court site if you feel like wading through them all you can look them up.

If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was a straw sale. The guy asked his relative to buy him a Glock using the police discount and paid him back for it.

The court basically said they don't care if the person you bought for is not a prohibited person, or if they're a relative, or if it was a mistake stemming from an attempt to get a discount, buy for someone else and it's illegal.

For bonafide gifts, you mark that you are the purchaser, it's in the instructions. You can buy a gift for anyone, not just relatives, under federal law. My question is how the cops came to know he was reimbursed? He should have known enough about the law to tell them it was a gift- unless they find a cashed check for the same exact amount, good luck proving it wasn't.

 

[No_Regerts]

Assuming we don't need more laws, magazine restrictions, background checks etc., how does John Q Citizen at the mall defend himself against an AR type rifle with multiple large magazines? Even if you're carrying one yourself, I would think quite a few people could go down before John Q could stop the perpetrator.
I'm not sure what designating these as domestic terrorism ( and FBI involvement ) will do.
One thing I'd like to see is much tougher treatment for family members etc who know somebody is on the fringe and just about to do something nasty, but do nothing.

"I can't turn in my own son" fine, you can do the 30 years in prison for him after he goes off on a crowd in public. Wife observes odd behaviour and doesn't report it -- jail time. Neighbor buys gun for somebody else -- jail time. etc

You'd be surprised how poorly bad guy will begin to perform once he's taking fire.

Remember the famous "North Hollywood Shootout"? You remember the footage of masked guys spraying fire at all the cops and how helpless they looked? But, even as helpless as they looked, they SHOT BACK.

You know how many died during that fight?

2! Both bad guys died and that was it. It goes from shooting fish in a barrel, to falling overboard into a bunch of sharks.

 

[The Heretic]

If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was a straw sale. The guy asked his relative to buy him a Glock using the police discount and paid him back for it.

The court basically said they don't care if the person you bought for is not a prohibited person, or if they're a relative, or if it was a mistake stemming from an attempt to get a discount, buy for someone else and it's illegal.

For bonafide gifts, you mark that you are the purchaser, it's in the instructions. You can buy a gift for anyone, not just relatives, under federal law. My question is how the cops came to know he was reimbursed? He should have known enough about the law to tell them it was a gift- unless they find a cashed check for the same exact amount, good luck proving it wasn't.

The uncle paid him back with a check for the exact amount. That is how they found out and proved it.

 

[ACO]

IMHO.....paying $ to exercise a RIGHT. Well then, it ain't a RIGHT anymore.*

Then, even if it starts out FREE (or at a small cost).....who's to say that later.....things won't change? Shall we raise it to $1000 per firearm?

Additionally......not all people live close to an FFL. And, consider that the FFL's time is worth something. Or is it OK, to REQUIRE their involvement without remuneration?

BTW......I don't know if you were aware of a certain gun shop in Tacoma that refuses to be involved in private sales/transfers between individuals. So....should the Govt also by law....make them?

What if, both the buyer and seller were just required to complete transfers at the nearby police station? Rrright…...anyone want to chime in?

*Not to mention....waiting periods, mental health backgound checks, family doctor's approval, fingerprints files, etc.....

Aloha, Mark

You're not really trying to listen, but as I said, it should be free. Shouldn't require an FFL. Shouldn't create a registry. But they're not looking to make it effective or easy. They want to make it harder and complicated. But I'm not here to argue.‍

 

[Talos32]

You're not really trying to listen, but as I said, it should be free. Shouldn't require an FFL. Shouldn't create a registry. But they're not looking to make it effective or easy. They want to make it harder and complicated. But I'm not here to argue.‍

If we are fated to lose on UBCs, this would be the thing to fight.

If our side said "we're not against UBC in principle, but we want assurances that it won't create a registry or be used like a poll tax to create a barrier to the trade of guns."

We could follow up with a proposal for a national 800 number that is free to call, doesn't request details of firearms being transferred and produces a checksum that can be used by buyer or seller later to prove the check was done. All the checksum would link to is the name of the buyer and the date. Add in a way to sell across state lines without going through an FFL. Of course we would also like any state laws that require a different background check process invalidated under the supremacy clause at the same time. So we actually get some real benefit from having UBC.

Let the antis fight against our reasonable proposal and then hit them on all the talking head shows for being unwilling to compromise and wanting to suppress the sale and ownership of guns under the guise of "common sense" gun laws. Hammer on transfer fees as the modern day poll tax- you never have to pay to exercise a right. Expose them as liars who are only interested in the incremental disarmament of us all. Their own studies show most Americans don't support that.

 

[ACO]

Thats exactly what I was saying. Shouldn't have to be required, but available for law abiding citizens to use.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was a straw sale. The guy asked his relative to buy him a Glock using the police discount and paid him back for it.

The court basically said they don't care if the person you bought for is not a prohibited person, or if they're a relative, or if it was a mistake stemming from an attempt to get a discount, buy for someone else and it's illegal.

For bonafide gifts, you mark that you are the purchaser, it's in the instructions. You can buy a gift for anyone, not just relatives, under federal law. My question is how the cops came to know he was reimbursed? He should have known enough about the law to tell them it was a gift- unless they find a cashed check for the same exact amount, good luck proving it wasn't.

No don't that was it but ill try to look it up.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Hypocrites indeed, that was my thought also. I'm not joking at all. I told my grandson, stay out of ANY trouble son! It's all part of the "pussifacation" of America. These young kids do not stand a chance against the system!

Something scares me more than this and that's apathy. Posted this on another site and all I got was what does it matter? They said it give LEO the tool they need to stop mass shootings. OK granted, but were ever more closer to Orwell's 1984 than we were even in the 90's or under NoBama … and the attitude now scares me more than then!

 

[ma96782]

You're not really trying to listen, but as I said, it should be free. Shouldn't require an FFL. Shouldn't create a registry. But they're not looking to make it effective or easy. They want to make it harder and complicated. But I'm not here to argue.‍

Not trying to argue.....

So here is your first sentence......

I'm sure i have said it before, but why not allow any law enforcement agency to do a background check for free or a small $20 processing fee?

So then.....if it ain't FREE.....it sounds to me that you find paying $20 acceptable. The operative word in your sentence being, "or."

Sorry.....I'm a somewhat of a "hard liner" and I believe that charging anything (even charging $20 as you may find acceptable) is NOT IMHO ACCEPTABLE to exercise a RIGHT.

Think about it...….
All it takes, would be a law. So, if the Govt can charge money to exercise the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Then, they might/could also legally be able to charge for a church membership or attendance tax/fee to participate in a religion. Rrrrright.....demonize some Religious Group enough and some politician(s) might just demand that it becomes the law.

Justification......
Too many terrorist from that religious group. Plus....that religious group is spreading hate and some people are learning terrorist things/methods while at the gatherings, etc.....

So, with votes and all that, "Damm the 1st A". Like how some say, "Damm the 2nd A".

The Govt will claim, that they are NOT taking anyone's RIGHTS away. Just applying a tax/fee, to practice it. Not to mention, that it costs money to do a background check and it uses up precious time of the agency involved.

Ooops…..the word, "Tax" has such a negative feeling to it. Lets' just call it a "user fee." That way, it'll be more acceptable to more of the public. Cough, cough.....

Probably, only then......will the issue go to the SCOTUS.

But you know something?

Rrrrright.....they're doing it in the name of SAFETY. Cough, cough...… Humm…...maybe I read your sentence too closely?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....and for the record......I also don't agree with the NFA Tax scheme. I mention it because, some have floated the idea of placing the so called category of AWs into that scheme.

 

[ACO]

Ok.

So, free is best, but aside from South sound guns, who is not getting charged as it is jow for background checks? Do you raise this much of a stink about all tramsfer fees? Sounds like you're stomping your feet for no reason beyond riling yourself up.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Ok.

So, free is best, but aside from South sound guns, who is not getting charged as it is jow for background checks? Do you raise this much of a stink about all tramsfer fees? Sounds like you're stomping your feet for no reason beyond riling yourself up.

I'm with the above statement who you are arguing with. Yes, I raise stink for transfer fees. I raise stink for any and all gun control 4473's, background checks, I 594 fees or anything else we have to jump through before being able to exercise a guaranteed right.
Regardless of the stupid supreme court rulings who say our right is not absolute, I take issue with that for our forefathers left statements and quotes as to that it was absolute and an individual right. I also raise a stink over the 1st amendment that they say isn't absolute. for if it wasn't meant to be they would have said so, but the words shall not be abridged, and infringed were used. abridged means shortened and infringed means trespassed upon, as in Laws, etc... very clear intent of what the forefathers meant and our ever beloved courts have made a mockery of. So yes sorry I raise that stink. the guy's right if you have to jump through hoops then it's no longer a right. paying to do that right beforehand it's no longer a right and effectively, have overthrown the Republic but so-called majority rules garbage that didn't or doesn't exist. The majority only rules as in who gets elected which wasn't how the constitution states, to begin with, but that's where the buck stops after that were protected or supposed to be by the bill of rights. The second amendment is not a collective right it is an individual right. Were so far out of whack with the original intent of the bill of rights it sickening and scary.

 

[jeff68]

At the risk of appearing RACIST!!!. According to FBI statistics in 2013 African American males were 6% of the population and committed 42% of homicides. The PC crowd will never accept the facts.

 

[ACO]

Ok. Thanks for clearing up where you stand.
I've said my piece.

Lets hope one day our masters will just take a chance and revoke all 20k gun laws and let us see how things end up.