The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Catalyst wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:[
To keep things in perspective, the RKBA is actually a right, regardless of how much gun restrictionists promote the idea it is a privilege.

Correct, but gun restrictionist will counter with "but rights are not absolute". And this is true...so don't even play that game. Lets just get to the point where we say, "fine lets have a conversation, you want A, I want B for A" and get it done. Isn't that how stuff used to get done in Congress anyways?

Woooah...that's getting danger-close to rational, pragmatic, responsible actions. We haven't had any of that since, Tip O'Neill and Saint Ronny?

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

sikacz wrote:Just for clarification, who is the "2A mob? Is it perhaps anyone who supports the second amendment? Or is it a more select group? Seems a bit wide at the moment.

2A mob = 2A rabble. Was it you that kept complaining about "rabble"?

I consider the phrasing too broad. Be specific.

atxgunguy wrote:

Catalyst wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:[
To keep things in perspective, the RKBA is actually a right, regardless of how much gun restrictionists promote the idea it is a privilege.

Correct, but gun restrictionist will counter with "but rights are not absolute". And this is true...so don't even play that game. Lets just get to the point where we say, "fine lets have a conversation, you want A, I want B for A" and get it done. Isn't that how stuff used to get done in Congress anyways?

Woooah...that's getting danger-close to rational, pragmatic, responsible actions. We haven't had any of that since, Tip O'Neill and Saint Ronny?

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

sikacz wrote:Where? Link please. (Where weapons can be bought without Federal compliance).
Are you referring to private sales? This is not a loop hole.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/atf-for ... es-firearm

Is an ATF Form 4473 required when an unlicensed person sells or disposes a firearm?

No. The ATF Form 4473 is required only for sales or dispositions by a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g); 27 CFR 478.124]

Q&A Category: 
ATF Form 4473
Last Reviewed September 4, 2015

Federal law does require the form on all transactions that cross state lines. Private sales are face to face and do not require a form or background check. Is this the "loop hole"?

Oh come on. Private in-State sales is what everyone is calling "The Loophole". I don't think there is an FFL anywhere that would sell anything without a background check. Don't act dim.

Now why didn't you just say what you meant. I threw it out for you because you did not. Please refrain from calling anyone "dim" or acting "dim". I've asked you for links and you choose not to support your positions.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Oh come on. Private in-State sales is what everyone is calling "The Loophole". I don't think there is an FFL anywhere that would sell anything without a background check. Don't act dim.

What people don't seem to understand is that it is patently unconstitutional for the federal government to close that particular "loophole". That's why it isn't a loophole.

modernhamlet wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Oh come on. Private in-State sales is what everyone is calling "The Loophole". I don't think there is an FFL anywhere that would sell anything without a background check. Don't act dim.

What people don't seem to understand is that it is patently unconstitutional for the federal government to close that particular "loophole". That's why it isn't a loophole.

Citation needed.

States, mine among them, have banned private sales without going to an FFL. Isn't anything that's unconstitutional for the feds also unconstitutional for the states? I'd like to see I-594 overturned, but I'm not holding my breath.

Buck13 wrote:

modernhamlet wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Oh come on. Private in-State sales is what everyone is calling "The Loophole". I don't think there is an FFL anywhere that would sell anything without a background check. Don't act dim.

What people don't seem to understand is that it is patently unconstitutional for the federal government to close that particular "loophole". That's why it isn't a loophole.

Citation needed.

States, mine among them, have banned private sales without going to an FFL. Isn't anything that's unconstitutional for the feds also unconstitutional for the states? I'd like to see I-594 overturned, but I'm not holding my breath.

States differ. Local laws and all.

On the "gun show loop hole" and private sales.
http://www.wboc.com/story/21634191/freq ... e-accurate
Numbers matter.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/IB/the-trut ... shows.html

The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. (The same study found that twenty-five percent of crime guns came from gun stores, even though FBI permission is required for every purchase from a gun store.)

The reality is actual private sales are small and contribute little in the way of guns for criminals.
I'm not being obtuse, but I do require some supporting data.

It's important to note: Definitions matter. Words matter. That article from Popehat really nailed it with regards to the ongoing discussion/politicos screaming at each other over these issues, and if the aim is to be part of the discussion, having a higher standard for what we say is important. Dismissing other gun owners as "rabble" or a "mob" doesn't actually help the discussion.

There are a number of reasonable people, whether further right than a majority on this board or not, that are just as turned off by the folks attempting to pass legislation without even trying to understand what it is that they are legislating as we are, and so the knee jerk response has predictably turned into "go to hell" instead of trying to get somewhere. Dismissing it out of hand by denigrating them will do nothing but further entrench the positions, so I'd ask that you choose your words a bit more carefully.

Carry on.

The preceding (by Buck13) too long to quote, but...*Congress* shall make no law...doesn't say anything about States or cities. SCOTUS has, through the years, interpreted it to apply downward, but the Constitution doesn't *say* that...