Take that, You Dayumed Lib Gun grabers.

[olevetonahill]

Senate rejects expanded gun background checks





WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has rejected a bipartisan effort to expand federal background checks to more firearms buyers in a crucial showdown over gun control.

Wednesday's vote was a jarring blow to the drive to curb firearms sparked by December's massacre of children and staff at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. President Barack Obama made broadened background checks the centerpiece of his gun control proposals.

The roll call was also a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposed the plan as an ineffective infringement on gun rights.

The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

The system is designed to keep criminals and people with mental problems from getting guns.



http://news.yahoo.com/senate-rejects-expanded-gun-background-checks-203004430--politics.html

[Midtowner]

What's the rationale for being against this? We want criminals and people with mental problems to be able to get guns?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What's the rationale for being against this? We want criminals and people with mental problems to be able to get guns?We need a law that requires criminals and would-be criminals to obey the existing laws.

[olevetonahill]

What's the rationale for being against this? We want criminals and people with mental problems to be able to get guns?

You really are this ****in STUPID aint ya?

Its against the LAW now For Convicts and Crazymother ****ers to buy a gun . What would a few more checks do? NOTHING.
the crooks and Crazy mother****ers Steal em anyway.

[Midtowner]

You really are this ****in STUPID aint ya?

Its against the LAW now For Convicts and Crazymother ****ers to buy a gun . What would a few more checks do? NOTHING.
the crooks and Crazy mother****ers Steal em anyway.

Nothing? They'd make it harder for them to buy guns.

C'mon, rube, it ain't rocket science.

[OU68]

Nothing? They'd make it harder for them to buy guns.

C'mon, rube, it ain't rocket science.

Bull s**T The expanded background checks only impose on honest gun buyers/sellers - like Vet said, the crazies and crooks aren't going through an FFL in the first place.

[C&CDean]

Nothing? They'd make it harder for them to buy guns.

C'mon, rube, it ain't rocket science.

Oh fer ****'s sake, you really can't be as stupid as you act. You honestly think expanding a background check is gonna keep crazy from being crazy? Crazy is better than stupid...

[olevetonahill]

Nothing? They'd make it harder for them to buy guns.

C'mon, rube, it ain't rocket science.

Explain just how this would have made it harder for a Lunatic/Convict to buy a weapon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh fer ****'s sake, you really can't be as stupid as you act. You honestly think expanding a background check is gonna keep crazy from being crazy? Crazy is better than stupid...Dude ain't really stupid. He wants to dramatically enlarge government, and is willing to do almost anything to accomplish that. (either that, or you are correct)

In which case, he would be stupid, and we might have to say that crazy ain't necessarily better than stupid. 'Course, it(he) could be both.

[olevetonahill]

Oh fer ****'s sake, you really can't be as stupid as you act. You honestly think expanding a background check is gonna keep crazy from being crazy? Crazy is better than stupid...

Dean, Ive said it before ,matlock has been educated BEYOND his intelligence level.
plus hes still convinced that Crazy mother ****ers and Felons only get a weapon when the go to a Gun store and buy it.

[Midtowner]

I doubt y'all have worked with the sort of crazies I have. They're impulsive as hell. Any sort of delay is going to get a few of 'em to change their plans. A lot of them aren't sophisticated enough to figure out the easy way around these laws (private sales). It's not much of a burden, it's almost impossible for a rational, thinking person to be against it. What's the polling in favor of expanded background checks? 86% in favor. You 3 are in the extremely small minority.

--perchance, do any of you also subscribe to the notion that our country is secretly governed by lizard people?

[olevetonahill]

I doubt y'all have worked with the sort of crazies I have. They're impulsive as hell. Any sort of delay is going to get a few of 'em to change their plans. A lot of them aren't sophisticated enough to figure out the easy way around these laws (private sales). It's not much of a burden, it's almost impossible for a rational, thinking person to be against it. What's the polling in favor of expanded background checks? 86% in favor. You 3 are in the extremely small minority.

--perchance, do any of you also subscribe to the notion that our country is secretly governed by lizard people?


You are a ****in moran
do you see what you just did? you undermined your own argument in favor of the expanded checks by saying those folk are too ****in stupid to understand

Take a nap idiot.

[olevetonahill]

Dude ain't really stupid. He wants to dramatically enlarge government, and is willing to do almost anything to accomplish that. (either that, or you are correct)

In which case, he would be stupid, and we might have to say that crazy ain't necessarily better than stupid. 'Course, it(he) could be both.


Yes he is.

[TAFBSooner]

What's the rationale for being against this? We want criminals and people with mental problems to be able to get guns?

The other answers reflect how the law wouldn't do a lot of good in preventing Tucsons, Auroras, and Newtowns.

The reason it's an imposition is that it's a step in the wrong direction towards creating a national gun registry. While on-line and gun show sales wouldn't be that much different than today, it would create momentum towards further expanding background checks to cover private sales and transfers.

The only way to enforce that level of background-checking is to blatantly register guns, and registration is a necessary pre-condition for confiscation. Confiscation of all our weapons would leave the government in position to impose any sort of tyranny they wanted.

My only problem with the above argument is that the citizenry still has our guns, and the government already imposes any sort of tyranny they want.

[Speck]

Nothing? They'd make it harder for them to buy guns.

C'mon, rube, it ain't rocket science.

Here is a novel idea, lets prosecute the people who fail background checks now instead of writing new laws.

[Midtowner]

moran

Do you spell it that way ironically?

[olevetonahill]

Do you spell it that way ironically?

Yup yer dumber than a ****in rock.
Want me make a pole to see which way is right?

[XingTheRubicon]

I'm assuming it's "give a liberal an inch..." that is concerning folks. After the AHA, the liberals deserve exactly what they're getting. 86% approval huh?...interesting .........**** you.

[Midtowner]

Yup yer dumber than a ****in rock.
Want me make a pole to see which way is right?

Again, are you trying to be ironic?

[C&CDean]

...

[olevetonahill]

...

Heh.

[diverdog]

339,400

[okie52]

I don't know much about this issue but Obama is blasting the pubs over this...

90% support by the American people...well I doubt that. I am sure if I phrased the question in a different manner those numbers would drop substantially. However, I suspect that most Americans would support legislation that would require background checks on most sales of guns.

So now Obama is going after those that voted against this legislation...or so he says.

[olevetonahill]

Again, are you trying to be ironic?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcTMTzSQiE

[olevetonahill]

I don't know much about this issue but Obama is blasting the pubs over this...

90% support by the American people...well I doubt that. I am sure if I phrased the question in a different manner those numbers would drop substantially. However, I suspect that most Americans would support legislation that would require background checks on most sales of guns.

So now Obama is going after those that voted against this legislation...or so he says.

Okie, we ALREADY have back ground checks. the Only thing this would have done would be to put a halt to Private sales between individuals.
kinda like Making EVERY one become a Licensed used car dealer just to sell their own Car:very_drunk:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What is REALLY on the minds of the American people is the economy, or lack of it. Well, that and somehow stopping the advancing stranglehold of government on everything and everyone.

[TAFBSooner]

Okie, we ALREADY have back ground checks. the Only thing this would have done would be to put a halt to Private sales between individuals.
kinda like Making EVERY one become a Licensed used car dealer just to sell their own Car:very_drunk:

From the article in your original post:
The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

So which is it? All transfers including face-to-face and between family members? Or adding gun show and online sales to the current law?

Neither one is good, but one is worse than the other.

[C&CDean]

I oftentimes wonder what the percentage is of legally purchased firearms - with or without a background check - resulting in the buyer committing a violent crime with said firearm? My guess? <.01%? Amirite?

[olevetonahill]

From the article in your original post:
The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

So which is it? All transfers including face-to-face and between family members? Or adding gun show and online sales to the current law?

Neither one is good, but one is worse than the other.


Show me how you can buy a weapon ON-Line?
If you do it still has to be shipped to a Local Licensed dealer and then all the required Paperwork and checks are done.
The only sales that I know of that aren't subject to the checks are between friends and family, Sure there may be a SMALL number sold by individuals at Gun shows but Most are thru dealers who Do the checks at the show.

[diverdog]

From the article in your original post:
The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

So which is it? All transfers including face-to-face and between family members? Or adding gun show and online sales to the current law?

Neither one is good, but one is worse than the other.

It exempted "friends and family members" whatever that means.

The biggest thing that needs to be done is the sharing of information between the states so a felon cannot go to another state and buy a gun.

[TAFBSooner]

What is REALLY on the minds of the American people is the economy, or lack of it. Well, that and somehow stopping the advancing stranglehold of government on everything and everyone.

That first sentence is the truest thing I've ever heard you say, err, seen you type.

And that's in spite of all they're doing to distract us (wall to wall coverage of Newtown, Korea, Boston, plus some even more piddly s&*t that I am successful at ignoring).

[olevetonahill]

I oftentimes wonder what the percentage is of legally purchased firearms - with or without a background check - resulting in the buyer committing a violent crime with said firearm? My guess? <.01%? Amirite?

i'd be willing to bet yer rite .

[diverdog]

That first sentence is the truest thing I've ever heard you say, err, seen you type.

And that's in spite of all they're doing to distract us (wall to wall coverage of Newtown, Korea, Boston, plus some even more piddly s&*t that I am successful at ignoring).

We will have moderate growth this year.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

har...as if we are living in normal times...

[Turd_Ferguson]

It exempted "friends and family members" whatever that means.

The biggest thing that needs to be done is the sharing of information between the states so a felon cannot go to another state and buy a gun.Go to a state your not a resident of and try to purchase a firearm...ain't gonna happen.

[lubbocksooner]

What's the rationale for being against this? We want criminals and people with mental problems to be able to get guns?

My rationale is that the feds act on such a low number of declined checks (about 0.1% according to the last report I saw) that adding more won't help. The CNN article I read said since the checks inception under Clinton (so we are talking about Republican admin's as well) there have been over 500K turned down for having a feloy on their record and they still tried to buy a firearm. But if they are only going to check 0.1% of those guys what is the point? They could have arrested them and put them in jail but they won't so there is no reason to impose more useless checks that just slow down people like you and me.

[Midtowner]

My rationale is that the feds act on such a low number of declined checks (about 0.1% according to the last report I saw) that adding more won't help. The CNN article I read said since the checks inception under Clinton (so we are talking about Republican admin's as well) there have been over 500K turned down for having a feloy on their record and they still tried to buy a firearm. But if they are only going to check 0.1% of those guys what is the point? They could have arrested them and put them in jail but they won't so there is no reason to impose more useless checks that just slow down people like you and me.

I'm not sure what the law is. Is it a crime to fail a background check?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Is it a crime to fail a background check?If someone fails a background check, it means they will not become armed, doesn't it?

[lubbocksooner]

I'm not sure what the law is. Is it a crime to fail a background check?

Yes in almost every case it is. Because you are a person not allowed to have one trying to obtain one whether it be from having a felony conviction, being crazy, having a domestic violence conviction whatever you get the picture. It is a federal felony and they simply don't bother to prosecute and then the offender goes out to find some other way to get a weapon. What a waste of money and time to expand background checks if they will do nothing with the info. I bet if they would arrest a prosecute maybe 50% of these people we would not need more background checks. To be clear again this is a failure of all the administrations since/including Clinton.

[Midtowner]

If someone fails a background check, it means they will not become armed, doesn't it?

At least not at that gun shop, which might be enough. They are also on the radar and I'm hoping systems will be improved. I would assume with mental health flags in there, the law would be a lot quicker to act on an attempted purchase.

[East Coast Bias]

A good portion of this has been rebutted ad-nauseum. The language in the bill clearly addresses some of these concerns. However, Glenn Beck and others keep repeating the same lie hoping it turns into the truth. Clearly the majority of Americans (90%?) are for this bill, yet the 10% are holding them hostage in fear the boogie-man will come and take their guns. There was language added as well for those concerned for the 2nd Amendment, an obvious failed ploy to bring common sense into the equation.

[Midtowner]

Yes in almost every case it is. Because you are a person not allowed to have one trying to obtain one whether it be from having a felony conviction, being crazy, having a domestic violence conviction whatever you get the picture. It is a federal felony and they simply don't bother to prosecute and then the offender goes out to find some other way to get a weapon. What a waste of money and time to expand background checks if they will do nothing with the info. I bet if they would arrest a prosecute maybe 50% of these people we would not need more background checks. To be clear again this is a failure of all the administrations since/including Clinton.

So why not add mental health to the list? Do you think the feds might be able to better identify folks they need to urgently investigate if, say, a felon with a mental health history tries to buy an AR-15?

[lubbocksooner]

At least not at that gun shop, which might be enough. They are also on the radar and I'm hoping systems will be improved. I would assume with mental health flags in there, the law would be a lot quicker to act on an attempted purchase.

From the same report it listed 13,000 people denied firearms transactions for mental health reasons and you guessed it about the same 0.1% where checked out. Face it midtowner the Fed's won't really do anything to stop people who try to get weapons we have more than 10 years of data to show that. It is a possible 5 year sentence in the federal pen for lying on the background check in answer to your question.

[Midtowner]

From the same report it listed 13,000 people denied firearms transactions for mental health reasons and you guessed it about the same 0.1% where checked out. Face it midtowner the Fed's won't really do anything to stop people who try to get weapons we have more than 10 years of data to show that. It is a possible 5 year sentence in the federal pen for lying on the background check in answer to your question.

I've read some fairly disturbing things as to state databases on mental health. The way they're administered is abysmal. We should be looking at ways to improve it and this bill would've done that.

Face it. You're arguing for fewer guns denied to folks who should be denied guns. 84% of the country agrees this needs to happen.

[olevetonahill]

A good portion of this has been rebutted ad-nauseum. The language in the bill clearly addresses some of these concerns. However, Glenn Beck and others keep repeating the same lie hoping it turns into the truth. Clearly the majority of Americans (90%?) are for this bill, yet the 10% are holding them hostage in fear the boogie-man will come and take their guns. There was language added as well for those concerned for the 2nd Amendment, an obvious failed ploy to bring common sense into the equation.


I've read some fairly disturbing things as to state databases on mental health. The way they're administered is abysmal. We should be looking at ways to improve it and this bill would've done that.

Face it. You're arguing for fewer guns denied to folks who should be denied guns. 84% of the country agrees this needs to happen.

Can yall even agree on the Percentages? where in hell are you getting those numbers? Yer asz?
oh i know some Lib rag did a pole .
Bite me. Yall lost this round

[lubbocksooner]

I've read some fairly disturbing things as to state databases on mental health. The way they're administered is abysmal. We should be looking at ways to improve it and this bill would've done that.

Face it. You're arguing for fewer guns denied to folks who should be denied guns. 84% of the country agrees this needs to happen.

84% is a loaded number, again let a differnet group of people ask a slightly different way and the number comes way down. Can you make a poll and put it up here and see what you get?

Yes I agree states need to do a better job sharing that kind of data, send a clean bill dealing only with that and I will happily ask my reps to support it.

I am not arguing for that, I am arguing that people who falsely fill out background checks need to be investigated and arrested and prosecuted. In the Jan 10th hearing about this Biden said that the feds don't have the time to prosecute people for doing this sort of thing?? Really?? Also the most recent numbers (2010) showed aprox 72,000 transactions turned down with only 44 prosecutions. Now why won't the BATFE call local police and let them know when a denial happens? They apparently won't turn over that information for reasons of their own but the end result is convicted felon and crazy people running around trying to get firearms when they could be in jail.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Can yall even agree on the Percentages? where in hell are you getting those numbers? Yer asz?
oh i know some Lib rag did a pole .
Bite me. Yall lost this roundSome numbers I heard recently are that only4-5% of the public wants the more intrusive background checks and Amnesty, as well. They DO care a lot about the economic destruction we are experiencing.

[East Coast Bias]

Can yall even agree on the Percentages? where in hell are you getting those numbers? Yer asz?
oh i know some Lib rag did a pole .
Bite me. Yall lost this round

I'm okay with Mid's 84% number, so I rounded up a little. You should come out of the woods more often rube, even Beck and Hannity are throwing these numbers around.....

[olevetonahill]

I'm okay with Mid's 84% number, so I rounded up a little. You should come out of the woods more often rube, even Beck and Hannity are throwing these numbers around.....

If i came off my Hill more often I'd run into tards Like you an matlock, No thanks

My point was an is like Lubbock pointed out. Those numbers are generated from BIASED poles. You should have enough intelligence to be able to understand that a Polester can ax a Question one way and get a specific result, Ax it another way and get a completely different result.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm okay with Mid's 84% number, so I rounded up a little. You should come out of the woods more often rube, even Beck and Hannity are throwing these numbers around.....

Notice your janky *** didn't cite the source of those percentages...

[lubbocksooner]

I'm okay with Mid's 84% number, so I rounded up a little. You should come out of the woods more often rube, even Beck and Hannity are throwing these numbers around.....

It is not the 84% per se, we would have to look at what the question was, how it was asked, who it was asked too (regional, national etc.) Then we could better judge the results. I don't doubt the nubmer for a minute but I bet I could slightly change the question and poll a little different area and get much different results.

[swardboy]

The Missouri Highway Patrol rolled over like a dog when the feds asked for the carry and conceal list in our state. There's an endgame to all of this, and I'm buying that it's the confiscation of arms.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Missouri Highway Patrol rolled over like a dog when the feds asked for the carry and conceal list in our state. There's an endgame to all of this, and I'm buying that it's the confiscation of arms.They're going about one step at a time, like they have to in order to get it done.

And, we are in the middle of the Perfect Storm.

[picasso]

I'm so glad I won't have to register my two shotguns and my wife's handgun just so the dip****s in Washington might some day decide to look at said registry and confiscate my said guns. There's a ton of break ins here where I live and if I hadn't registered my guns under that scenario I probably would get into trouble if I had to use said unregistered weapon to protect my family from said intruder. Thanks again.

[lubbocksooner]

Ok, here is a link to an article somewhat explaining the poll that was taken.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/

It says "86% support some form of background check not currently being done". However it goes on to say that not all agree on what to support so they basically asked "whould you support something different" and a lot said yes but if they get into specifics the numbers come down a lot. Pretty slanted questions.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Pretty slanted questions.

NO. WAY.

[olevetonahill]

NO. WAY.

Heh, Did ya get the Peem?

[TAFBSooner]

From the same report it listed 13,000 people denied firearms transactions for mental health reasons and you guessed it about the same 0.1% where checked out. Face it midtowner the Fed's won't really do anything to stop people who try to get weapons we have more than 10 years of data to show that. It is a possible 5 year sentence in the federal pen for lying on the background check in answer to your question.

Isn't it a felony to even apply if you are a convicted felon?

[TAFBSooner]

A good portion of this has been rebutted ad-nauseum. The language in the bill clearly addresses some of these concerns. However, Glenn Beck and others keep repeating the same lie hoping it turns into the truth. Clearly the majority of Americans (90%?) are for this bill, yet the 10% are holding them hostage in fear the boogie-man will come and take their guns. There was language added as well for those concerned for the 2nd Amendment, an obvious failed ploy to bring common sense into the equation.

At least one Senator advocates confiscation of "assault weapons:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein

Also this:
In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[27] [28]

What was the pro-Second Amendment language, anyway?

[Midtowner]

Those numbers are generated from BIASED poles.

Ah yes.. those biased poll which were discriminating against Romney.

Those summitches were wrong, AMIRITE!?

[olevetonahill]

Ah yes.. those biased poll which were discriminating against Romney.

Those summitches were wrong, AMIRITE!?

I never said a thing about Romney nor the poles back then, But you go ahead and play with yer little paper dolls and shat.

Take a sentence out of the middle of a para and then try to distort it.
Typical Looney tune Lib.

[soonerhubs]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/obama-denounces-gun-rights-groups-willful-liars/

If you look closely at the picture, you can see the great puppet master's hand up the asses of the other 2 in the picture.

Legislation by anecdote is beyond stupid. It's ****ty science.

If be interested to see the cost benefit analysis results if the justice department would enforce the laws already on the dawn books. ****ing politicians...

[MR2-Sooner86]

Great day for liberty.

[sappstuf]

I doubt y'all have worked with the sort of crazies I have. They're impulsive as hell. Any sort of delay is going to get a few of 'em to change their plans. A lot of them aren't sophisticated enough to figure out the easy way around these laws (private sales). It's not much of a burden, it's almost impossible for a rational, thinking person to be against it. What's the polling in favor of expanded background checks? 86% in favor. You 3 are in the extremely small minority.

--perchance, do any of you also subscribe to the notion that our country is secretly governed by lizard people?

Seems like murdering your mother and stealing her guns worked easy enough... Not very sophisticated, but effective.

[sappstuf]

I just watched the video of the president... Not very presidential. At all.

I liked the part where he was talking about the willful lies in this debate. I keep wondering if that willful lies comment applies to his claim that Newtown was caused by a fully automatic weapon...


I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly,"

He even corrected himself to say fully automatic weapon... Sounds willful to me.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I just watched the video of the president... Not very presidential. At all.

Are you surprised? I mean he has lied about the 40 percent of sales not being background checked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html).

[Midtowner]

Seems like murdering your mother and stealing her guns worked easy enough... Not very sophisticated, but effective.

Sure. Lanza's mother is partially to blame for this because she failed to secure her weapons. I hope the victims bleed the estate dry.

[olevetonahill]

Sure. Lanza's mother is partially to blame for this because she failed to secure her weapons. I hope the victims bleed the estate dry.

Holy hell. You even wake up stupid dont ya.

[soonerhubs]

Sure. Lanza's mother is partially to blame for this because she failed to secure her weapons. I hope the victims bleed the estate dry.

I'm no lawyer, but can't they do so without new laws?

Also, it's nice to see these folks (Feinstein, the "great compromiser," et al.) concerned about citing poll numbers. You know they were really focused on poll numbers as they shoved the health care law down our throats. ****ing politicians...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Holy hell. You even wake up stupid dont ya.

I got the peem. Work'n on it.

[olevetonahill]

I got the peem. Work'n on it.

:love-struck:

[C&CDean]

Sure. Lanza's mother is partially to blame for this because she failed to secure her weapons. I hope the victims bleed the estate dry.

If your kid steals your keys and takes your car and kills a bunch of people then you're liable? You're an idiot. Seriously.

[olevetonahill]

If your kid steals your keys and takes your car and kills a bunch of people then you're liable? You're an idiot. Seriously.

He aint got a Kid, He killed it to save a dog.

[Soonerjeepman]

from my understanding in order to actually preform a background check you have to be a licensed gun dealer. If you (a regular joe non dealer) call the FBI for the background information they CANNOT nor WILL NOT give it to you...

SO WHY put a law into effect that CANNOT be followed through with....hmmmm, maybe to prevent ANY non-dealer gun sales?

*this information was heard on the radio, a gun dealer called in and explained it...need to verify.

[C&CDean]

from my understanding in order to actually preform a background check you have to be a licensed gun dealer. If you (a regular joe non dealer) call the FBI for the background information they CANNOT nor WILL NOT give it to you...

SO WHY put a law into effect that CANNOT be followed through with....hmmmm, maybe to prevent ANY non-dealer gun sales?

*this information was heard on the radio, a gun dealer called in and explained it...need to verify.

I purchase a lot of firearms. It goes like this: a phone call is made to (I assume) the FBI. Then, the dealer gives them a long dealer number to identify himself as a dealer. Then he tells them your name, dob, ssn, state of birth, etc. Then he'll tell them if it's a handgun or long gun. Then they'll either approve it, or tell him he needs to go to the next level of approval. This always happens with me because I was arrested back in 1975 for "possession of a prohibited weapon" in the DFW airport. At the "next level" they always approve me. Some folks don't get approved for whatever reason.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Usually takes about 3-4 minutes depending on how busy the FBI is.

[lubbocksooner]

Usually takes about 3-4 minutes depending on how busy the FBI is.

I just keep my CHL and my 03FFL up to date and just skip the NCIS check. I am a cash and carry man!

[jkjsooner]

I purchase a lot of firearms. It goes like this: a phone call is made to (I assume) the FBI. Then, the dealer gives them a long dealer number to identify himself as a dealer. Then he tells them your name, dob, ssn, state of birth, etc. Then he'll tell them if it's a handgun or long gun. Then they'll either approve it, or tell him he needs to go to the next level of approval. This always happens with me because I was arrested back in 1975 for "possession of a prohibited weapon" in the DFW airport. At the "next level" they always approve me. Some folks don't get approved for whatever reason.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Usually takes about 3-4 minutes depending on how busy the FBI is.

That brings up the point about the legality of failing a background check. Unless you are a felon, if you fail a background check (maybe mental health reasons) you might not know in advance that you would fail it. The assumption that failing a background check automatically implies you broke a law can't be true.

[C&CDean]

That brings up the point about the legality of failing a background check. Unless you are a felon, if you fail a background check (maybe mental health reasons) you might not know in advance that you would fail it. That can't possibly be illegal so the assumption that failing a background check automatically implies you broke a law can't be true.

OK? Not really sure what your point is, but OK.

[jkjsooner]

We need a law that requires criminals and would-be criminals to obey the existing laws.

I really want to stay out of this but this comment is just stupid. Clone, you post so many things that lead me to believe that you couldn't answer half the questions on a standardized logic or critical thinking test.

Let me give you an analogy that's very similar to this.

It's illegal for a minor to possess alcohol. It's also illegal to sell alcohol to a minor. It's a two pronged approach to curb underage drinking. Only an idiot would characterize the prohibition of a sale as just "a law that requires [minors] to obey the existing laws."

I really want to believe that you understand the difference but I'm really beginning to get the idea that you really just aren't too bright.

[olevetonahill]

I really want to stay out of this but this comment is just stupid. Clone, you post so many things that lead me to believe that you couldn't answer half the questions on a standardized logic or critical thinking test.

Let me give you an analogy that's very similar to this.

It's illegal for a minor to possess alcohol. It's also illegal to sell alcohol to a minor. It's a two pronged approach to curb underage drinking. The latter is not just an additional law that requires minors to obey existing laws.

I really want to believe that you understand the difference but I'm really beginning to get the idea that you really just aren't too bright.

Tongue in Cheek?

[jkjsooner]

Tongue in Cheek?

That is a possibility but I'm beginning to think not.

[jkjsooner]

OK? Not really sure what your point is, but OK.

Wasn't really a counter-point to what you said. Earlier in the thread there was discussions on whether a failed background check implies a law has been broken. I think your comment that non-felons can fail a background check kind of answers that part of the question.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I would like to ask a question of supporters of this legislation. We basically know the profile of these mass murderers. They are methodical, plodding, above average intelligence and have a screw loose which doesn't allow them to feel any compasion for other human beings.

These guys plan these events over months, even years. Most of them have no prior criminal record. We have no means of identifying and dealing with these guys and this bill does nothing to address that. So outside of the emotional argument that we have to "do something" to protect our children, what about this bill protects our children?

I would like to hear especially from people who wouldn't kill their kids to save their dog.

[lubbocksooner]

[QUOTE=jkjsooner;3602005]That brings up the point about the legality of failing a background check. Unless you are a felon, if you fail a background check (maybe mental health reasons) you might not know in advance that you would fail it. The assumption that failing a background check automatically implies you broke a law can't be true.[/QUOTE

I would think with the possible exception of the mentally ill the answer is going to be "yes" because you go through and answer the questions that the background check is asking such as "Are you subject to a restraining order" you put "no" but you really are. Some would say people could forget they have a restraing order against them but they knew at one point for sure they did and I would think you would be dang sure whether or not that bad boy was still in effect. So you answer "no" and the real answer is "yes" you sing the affidavit and you have lied and are guilty of a federal felony as far as the law is concerned. I realize there can be extenuating circumstances but by and large you are responsible for knowing the answer to the questions you are being asked. Here is a link to the 4473 pdf so you can see for yourself.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

[XingTheRubicon]

I would like to ask a question of supporters of this legislation. We basically know the profile of these mass murderers. They are methodical, plodding, above average intelligence and have a screw loose which doesn't allow them to feel any compasion for other human beings.

These guys plan these events over months, even years. Most of them have no prior criminal record. We have no means of identifying and dealing with these guys and this bill does nothing to address that. So outside of the emotional argument that we have to "do something" to protect our children, what about this bill protects our children?

I would like to hear especially from people who wouldn't kill their kids to save their dog.

c'mon, only a scum-sucking maggot would say that

[jkjsooner]

I would like to ask a question of supporters of this legislation. We basically know the profile of these mass murderers. They are methodical, plodding, above average intelligence and have a screw loose which doesn't allow them to feel any compasion for other human beings.

These guys plan these events over months, even years. Most of them have no prior criminal record. We have no means of identifying and dealing with these guys and this bill does nothing to address that. So outside of the emotional argument that we have to "do something" to protect our children, what about this bill protects our children?

I would like to hear especially from people who wouldn't kill their kids to save their dog.

First off, while tragedies like Sandy Hook are an impetus to get people to act, that isn't the big problem they're trying to solve - at least not with things like background checks. They're trying to solve all forms of gun violence like you see in the inner cities.

It's a balancing act because they know that expanded background checks wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or many of the other mass shootings but they know that those images will persuade others to act.

The round limitation on magazines is another matter. Rather than trying to address the majority of gun violence, it attempts to address the deaths in the less common mass shootings. This wasn't in the final bill.

To summarize:

1. Background checks - really meant to prevent normal gun violence.
2. Round limitations - meant specifically to address mass shootings.

[jkjsooner]

I would think with the possible exception of the mentally ill the answer is going to be "yes" because you go through and answer the questions that the background check is asking such as "Are you subject to a restraining order" you put "no" but you really are. Some would say people could forget they have a restraing order against them but they knew at one point for sure they did and I would think you would be dang sure whether or not that bad boy was still in effect. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

That's true if they lied on the form. But you can tell the truth and fail because of something you put on the form. So, again, failing the check itself doesn't imply a crime was committed.

[rock on sooner]

I would like to ask a question of supporters of this legislation. We basically know the profile of these mass murderers. They are methodical, plodding, above average intelligence and have a screw loose which doesn't allow them to feel any compasion for other human beings.

These guys plan these events over months, even years. Most of them have no prior criminal record. We have no means of identifying and dealing with these guys and this bill does nothing to address that. So outside of the emotional argument that we have to "do something" to protect our children, what about this bill protects our children

I would like to hear especially from people who wouldn't kill their kids to save their dog.

The Aurora shooter was flagged as dangerous by at least two college profs...one in Colorado
and one in Iowa, where he was denied admission to a U of IA grad program.

I think the VA Tech shooter was also tagged as dangerous and the shooter at Ft Hood was under
review by his superiors as a possible threat. In every case, nothing was pursued by the
authorities. In a least a few cases, something broke down and these nutcases slipped
through, so something should be done to tighten the system, although I don't know that
enhanced background checks is that something.

[jkjsooner]

By the way, on a completely unrelated topic, a lot of people (including here) ridiculed gun control supporters for calling it a clip instead of a magazine.

When I was watching the Cronkite Vietnam documentaries (mostly from footage taken during the war), I noticed on three separate occasions soldiers referring to them as clips when the context implied they were referring to a magazine. One was the "charlie company" documentary, one was an interview with a guy who was at Mai Lai. I don't remember where the third was.

[sappstuf]

I've read some fairly disturbing things as to state databases on mental health. The way they're administered is abysmal. We should be looking at ways to improve it and this bill would've done that.

Face it. You're arguing for fewer guns denied to folks who should be denied guns. 84% of the country agrees this needs to happen.

But only 4% think it is the most important issue. A number that has actually dropped since February.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

Obama severely overplayed his hand and got spanked putting Dem control of the Senate in even more jeopardy.

[lubbocksooner]

That's true if they lied on the form. But you can tell the truth and fail because of something you put on the form. So, again, failing the check itself doesn't imply a crime was committed.

I guess so but the problem with that is you say answer yes to one about being addicted to/unlawfully using drugs. Most anyone who was DQ'd for that would also have an arrest for something then they are a convicted criminal trying to obtain a weapon...a crime it is says Yoda. If you are turned down for something like being on a no fly list or not paying child support or owing back taxes you name it. You may not have comitted a but there still needs to be a follow up of some kind especially for things like the no fly or child support. Plus it says right on the page "if you answere yes to question X you are prohibited". Why go on from there? Most of the denied tranactions though are because of the person having some kind of criminal background. Shoot like I posted before of the over one million denied transactions half were because of them having prior felonies. Then add in domestic violence, drug conviction and other and most are criminals. Yes some are for other reasons but the fact is the BATFE does a **** poor job of hunting done people trying to get firearms that should not have them.

[Midtowner]

I would think with the possible exception of the mentally ill the answer is going to be "yes" because you go through and answer the questions that the background check is asking such as "Are you subject to a restraining order" you put "no" but you really are. Some would say people could forget they have a restraing order against them but they knew at one point for sure they did and I would think you would be dang sure whether or not that bad boy was still in effect. So you answer "no" and the real answer is "yes" you sing the affidavit and you have lied and are guilty of a federal felony as far as the law is concerned. I realize there can be extenuating circumstances but by and large you are responsible for knowing the answer to the questions you are being asked. Here is a link to the 4473 pdf so you can see for yourself.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Let's say you were convicted of a felony as a juvenile. Do you know (without Googling it) whether you'd be allowed to purchase a gun? What would you answer on the form when asked whether you had been convicted of a felony, knowing that those charges were dismissed when you turned 18 and are confidential?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would like to ask a question of supporters of this legislation. We basically know the profile of these mass murderers. They are methodical, plodding, above average intelligence and have a screw loose which doesn't allow them to feel any compasion for other human beings.

These guys plan these events over months, even years. Most of them have no prior criminal record. We have no means of identifying and dealing with these guys and this bill does nothing to address that. So outside of the emotional argument that we have to "do something" to protect our children, what about this bill protects our children?

I would like to hear especially from people who wouldn't kill their kids to save their dog.Well said. Here's a photo that sorta reflects your argument:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/11937_10201108088769245_180311389_n.jpg

[Bourbon St Sooner]

First off, while tragedies like Sandy Hook are an impetus to get people to act, that isn't the big problem they're trying to solve - at least not with things like background checks. They're trying to solve all forms of gun violence like you see in the inner cities.

It's a balancing act because they know that expanded background checks wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or many of the other mass shootings but they know that those images will persuade others to act.

The round limitation on magazines is another matter. Rather than trying to address the majority of gun violence, it attempts to address the deaths in the less common mass shootings. This wasn't in the final bill.

To summarize:

1. Background checks - really meant to prevent normal gun violence.
2. Round limitations - meant specifically to address mass shootings.

I don't understand how background checks prevent violence in the inner cities either. Guys who know how to get massive quantities of illegal narcotics also know how to get illegal guns. There are thousands of illegal guns in the hands of convicted felons in the inner cities.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Watch our leaders for advice. Their example is heartwarming:

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff208/twidget59/hypocriteandhusband_zps33993c8f.jpg

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The Aurora shooter was flagged as dangerous by at least two college profs...one in Colorado
and one in Iowa, where he was denied admission to a U of IA grad program.

I think the VA Tech shooter was also tagged as dangerous and the shooter at Ft Hood was under
review by his superiors as a possible threat. In every case, nothing was pursued by the
authorities. In a least a few cases, something broke down and these nutcases slipped
through, so something should be done to tighten the system, although I don't know that
enhanced background checks is that something.

As I stated, there is no real system for identifying and dealing with these guys. To me that's the more important piece and yet nobody wants to address it. I guess it's easier to blame it on a piece of metal.

[lubbocksooner]

Let's say you were convicted of a felony as a juvenile. Do you know (without Googling it) whether you'd be allowed to purchase a gun? What would you answer on the form when asked whether you had been convicted of a felony, knowing that those charges were dismissed when you turned 18 and are confidential?

I guess you would answer the question "yes" and let the background check procede and see. Keep in mind if a state does not report the felony to NCIS then there would be nothing to base a denial on. Also keep in mind some stated also do their own check and it might ping there depending on how the judge entered the order. Expunged records are just that expunged but the may still take a hit and delay the transaction. Now once the transaction is "delayed" the BATFE has seven business days to deny it. If they don't in that time the transaction may procede. So you would need to check the state you are in to see how "confidential" those records are. Does that help? Keep in mind I am neither a dealer or lawyer so I don't get all the stuff from BATFE but I do make a habit of checking out their new rulings and such from time to time as it concerns me and my license.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm leery of banning individuals from owning firearms for being identified as having mental problems when they have no history of violence.

The problem I have is that I can easily see the desire to own a firearm being considered a form of mental illness in and of itself; therefore, anyone wanting to own a firearm is inherently unqualified to do so and dangerous.

[FaninAma]

We will have moderate growth this year.
Wrong again. China growth slowing. Europe gdp down even more than predicted. Retail sails in the US far lower than predicted. Commodity prices crashing. The only positive GDP "growth will be government spending...45% of which is borrowed.

Once again, the economy will never recover until the debt bubble implodes. Until it does we will get massive stagflation, little growth and worse and worse employment conditions.

[rock on sooner]

As I stated, there is no real system for identifying and dealing with these guys. To me that's the more important piece and yet nobody wants to address it. I guess it's easier to blame it on a piece of metal.

I argued in a thread a few months ago that adding mental health questions,
although I don't know what type, to the background check form might aid
in the whole thing. Most who responded said that privacy issues would trump
everything. I still think that 7-10 questions, crafted by psychologists to identify
certain tendencies, violent and/or felonious, would circumvent privacy issues
and maybe kick the form into another bucket for further scrutiny. Still not
going stop many, but it might stop a few more and really not infringe on the
law abiding citizenry.

There are questions on job applications that do this and I haven't heard of
any ACLU bleeding hearts wanting to sue.

[Soonerjeepman]

I purchase a lot of firearms. It goes like this: a phone call is made to (I assume) the FBI. Then, the dealer gives them a long dealer number to identify himself as a dealer. Then he tells them your name, dob, ssn, state of birth, etc. Then he'll tell them if it's a handgun or long gun. Then they'll either approve it, or tell him he needs to go to the next level of approval. This always happens with me because I was arrested back in 1975 for "possession of a prohibited weapon" in the DFW airport. At the "next level" they always approve me. Some folks don't get approved for whatever reason.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Usually takes about 3-4 minutes depending on how busy the FBI is.

so what happens if you (a non dealer ) calls? the guy on the radio's point was UNLESS you are a dealer then these gun show sales can't do a background check...because most are NOT approved gun dealers...yes/no? and the FBI won't tell you anything....right?

[lubbocksooner]

so what happens if you (a non dealer ) calls? the guy on the radio's point was UNLESS you are a dealer then these gun show sales can't do a background check...because most are NOT approved gun dealers...yes/no? and the FBI won't tell you anything....right?

Correct you must be a dealer to access the NCIS. However if you want to be safe take it to a dealer as part of the deal have them run a NCIS check on the buyer and you split the cost. Be up front that is one of your selling conditions or no deal. Or you can ask to see a CHL or some other type of FFL and ID. I have asked to see a CHL before on a rare occasion that I sold something just to make sure that the person was not prohibited. After all it is my weapon until the money changes hands and if that is part of my sale conditions like it or leave it.

[Soonerjeepman]

Correct you must be a dealer to access the NCIS. However if you want to be safe take it to a dealer as part of the deal have them run a NCIS check on the buyer and you split the cost. Be up front that is one of your selling conditions or no deal. Or you can ask to see a CHL or some other type of FFL and ID. I have asked to see a CHL before on a rare occasion that I sold something just to make sure that the person was not prohibited. After all it is my weapon until the money changes hands and if that is part of my sale conditions like it or leave it.

I figured...not for me just in response to this legislation, forcing background checks at these gun shows when in reality it is something that legally CANNOT be preformed (unless they would set something up)...to me just another way to control the sales on a different level. So their reasoning is not transparent....it's not to have safe sales but to have limited or no sales, hence gun control which is their true intent for some.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The problem I have is that I CAN easily SEE the desire to own a firearm being considered a form of mental illness in and of itself; therefore, anyone wanting to own a firearm is inherently unqualified to do so and dangerous.That does seem to be how the authoritarians think about the 2nd Amendment. They DO run the govt. Time(and, prolly not very much time) will tell us how goes the takedown attempt.

[lubbocksooner]

I figured...not for me just in response to this legislation, forcing background checks at these gun shows when in reality it is something that legally CANNOT be preformed (unless they would set something up)...to me just another way to control the sales on a different level. So their reasoning is not transparent....it's not to have safe sales but to have limited or no sales, hence gun control which is their true intent for some.

They would have to set up a "trader" are or something like that with a dealer doing nothing but checks. Would create a bit of a bottle neck possibly that is one really nice benefit of my CHL it qualifies as a NCIS so I just fill out the paper work and walk away. No check for me so no worries, that does bring up another point. The dealer would have to log the weapon in and out of his/her book so it creats a paper trail which is where a lot of the worries of a registration scheme come in. If they made the transfers on a different form that was then shredded by the seller/buyer once the transaction was cleared that might ease some minds. I still would not go for it though.

[TAFBSooner]

I'm leery of banning individuals from owning firearms for being identified as having mental problems when they have no history of violence.

The problem I have is that I can easily see the desire to own a firearm being considered a form of mental illness in and of itself; therefore, anyone wanting to own a firearm is inherently unqualified to do so and dangerous.

Obama did say it (gun control push) isn't over, and this may be one way to do it.

Also, the Soviets used to say anyone who spoke out against the state was mentally ill and therefore locked them up.

[TAFBSooner]

I don't understand how background checks prevent violence in the inner cities either. Guys who know how to get massive quantities of illegal narcotics also know how to get illegal guns. There are thousands of illegal guns in the hands of convicted felons in the inner cities.

A lot of the dead people in the inner cities (cough, Chicago, cough) are kids (teenagers) who've been shot by other kids. They are "gang" members, but not drug gangs, just groups of kids. Obama may be trying to cut down on this, rather than violence related to drug gangs.

Who knows, maybe his anger is real?

[OU68]

A good portion of this has been rebutted ad-nauseum. The language in the bill clearly addresses some of these concerns. However, Glenn Beck and others keep repeating the same lie hoping it turns into the truth. Clearly the majority of Americans (90%?) are for this bill, yet the 10% are holding them hostage in fear the boogie-man will come and take their guns. There was language added as well for those concerned for the 2nd Amendment, an obvious failed ploy to bring common sense into the equation.

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.



Read more: http://www.wbzt.com/articles/nationa...#ixzz2Q5lzKDVV

[lubbocksooner]

A lot of the dead people in the inner cities (cough, Chicago, cough) are kids (teenagers) who've been shot by other kids. They are "gang" members, but not drug gangs, just groups of kids. Obama may be trying to cut down on this, rather than violence related to drug gangs.

Who knows, maybe his anger is real?

Maybe it is real but I don't care. The conditions that cause the problems in Chicago have little to no bearing on life in the place I live. There is not a "one size fits all" solution to this problem. All the regulation that Chicago and other large cities have has little difference in this type of violence. They would be better off teaching the kids to read and garden that in making handguns illegal. I don't know what the best solution is but what they have tried sure isn't working so why not get rid of those laws and try something else?

[lubbocksooner]

Just like OU68 posted the medical front of what they are trying is scary. Just because some one has used antidepresants or seen a counselor does not mean they should have their rights stripped aways. If a judge rules you are a danger to yourself/others and goes through the process so be it but otherwise no way!

[OULenexaman]

Watch our leaders for advice. Their example is heartwarming:

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff208/twidget59/hypocriteandhusband_zps33993c8f.jpg best post in this thread...

[olevetonahill]

best post in this thread...

Heh, clone do hit a Homer every now an then :pirate:

[rock on sooner]

best post in this thread...

Leastwise, she knows how to hold the dayum thing!

[sappstuf]

best post in this thread...

TZ3Ibp9LQPM

[rock on sooner]

TZ3Ibp9LQPM

Izzat tha new definition fer gun grabbin?

[OULenexaman]

Leastwise, she knows how to hold the dayum thing! would make for a great fark standing next to Obammy yesterday in the Rose Garden....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

best post in this thread...thanks. I understand the photo was taken before one of her fellow libs fired into her head. Now her hubby is all register and restrict etc...after he bought one of his own.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Heh, clone do hit a Homer every now an then :pirate:Clone hits homers every day. That's why I be so effin' proud of his superstar self.

This photo, however, did not come from him.

[TAFBSooner]

thanks. I understand the photo was taken before one of her fellow libs fired into her head. Now her hubby is all register and restrict etc...after he bought one of his own.

Clone: Schizophrenia sufferers = liberals. Thank God Fan told us that conservatives are all about respectful, insult-free debate.

My son has schizophrenia. I can assure you that he has no politics.

[Whet]

It is strange, the gun grabbers never talk about the other parts of that failed bill, such as, making carrying a firearm in the passenger compartment of your vehicle - how many gun racks do you see in the pickups? Also, if your wife or daughter was driving from Tulsa to St. Louis, she could not have a firearm for personal protection/self-defense. Oh, she could keep an unloaded firearm in the trunk and the ammo in a separate locked container. The gun grabbers do not want you to protect yourself. Here is the text from this section:

SEC. 128. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.
(a) In General.-Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition
"(a) Definition.-In this section, the term ‘transport'-
"(1) includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport; and
"(2) does not include transportation-
"(A) with the intent to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year that involves a firearm; or
"(B) with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, that a crime described in subparagraph (A) is to be committed in the course of, or arising from, the transportation.
"(b) Authorization.-Notwithstanding any provision of any law (including a rule or regulation) of a State or any political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by this chapter from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm or ammunition shall be entitled to-
"(1) transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where the person may lawfully possess, carry, or transport the firearm to any other such place if, during the transportation-
"(A) the firearm is unloaded; and
"(B)(i) if the transportation is by motor vehicle-
"(I) the firearm is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle; or
"(II) if the motor vehicle is without a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the firearm is-
"(aa) in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console; or
"(bb) secured by a secure gun storage or safety device; or
"(ii) if the transportation is by other means, the firearm is in a locked container or secured by a secure gun storage or safety device; and
"(2) transport ammunition for any lawful purpose from any place where the person may lawfully possess, carry, or transport the ammunition, to any other such place if, during the transportation-
"(A) the ammunition is not loaded into a firearm; and
"(B)(i) if the transportation is by motor vehicle-
"(I) the ammunition is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle; or
"(II) if the motor vehicle is without a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the ammunition is in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console; or
"(ii) if the transportation is by other means, the ammunition is in a locked container.
"(c) Limitation on Arrest Authority.-A person who is transporting a firearm or ammunition may not be-
"(1) arrested for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms or ammunition, unless there is probable cause that the transportation is not in accordance with subsection (b); or
"(2) detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms or ammunition, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the transportation is not in accordance with subsection (b).".
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.-The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 926A and inserting the following:
"926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition.".

[cleller]

On the question about the existing background checks, and who has access to them here's a little more info:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-overview

So, the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) does appear to be available only to Federal Firearms License holders. Probably necessary to keep random nuts from clogging or abusing the system.

This also goes over the procedure, and mentions which states have further steps added in.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=24186

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Clone: Schizophrenia sufferers = liberals. Thank God Fan told us that conservatives are all about respectful, insult-free debate.

My son has schizophrenia. I can assure you that he has no politics.WTF kind of misinterpretation do we have here?

The poor survivor woman was shot by a loony Leftist, who would not have been stopped by any anti-gun laws.

She is being used by the anti Second Amendment faction, as expected by all, and her husband goes along with it, while showing silly-as*ed judgment and purchasing a gun when concurrently criticizing the Right to Bear arms.

[OU_Sooners75]

Gun Control Act of 1968 addresses who can legally purchase a gun and who can't.
Brady Bill of 1993 addresses the use of background checks and registration when purchasing a gun from FFL gun dealers.

At gun shows, the vast majority of booths are FFL gun dealers and C&R dealers and collectors. The only way you would be able to bypass a background check at a gun show is from an individual that is selling a gun, or buying antique collectibles.

A national gun registry? Well, that could very easily make it where the government can confiscate any and all guns you possess.

[TAFBSooner]

WTF kind of misinterpretation do we have here?

The poor survivor woman was shot by a loony Leftist, who would not have been stopped by any anti-gun laws.

She is being used by the anti Second Amendment faction, as expected by all, and her husband goes along with it, while showing silly-as*ed judgment and purchasing a gun when concurrently criticizing the Right to Bear arms.

How do you figure Loughner was a Leftist?

He had schizophrenia - I doubt he had any politics. He was "fixated" on Giffords, and she was a Democrat, so I don't see how you come up with the notion that he was a Leftist.

You disgrace yourself and the cause of freedom by slamming people who have been victims of gun violence for trying, as best they know how, to prevent it from happening to others. Even when this is a change from their beliefs before they were victimized.

Don't get me wrong - I support the Second Amendment. But slamming Giffords, or the parents of the Newtown victims, disgusts me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How do you figure Loughner was a Leftist?

He had schizophrenia - I doubt he had any politics. He was "fixated" on Giffords, and she was a Democrat, so I don't see how you come up with the notion that he was a Leftist.

You disgrace yourself and the cause of freedom by slamming people who have been victims of gun violence for trying, as best they know how, to prevent it from happening to others. Even when this is a change from their beliefs before they were victimized.

Don't get me wrong - I support the Second Amendment. But slamming Giffords, or the parents of the Newtown victims, disgusts me.Look up what Loughner has said. He is indeed a leftist. I am surprised you are arguing he isn't. You are the one disgracing yourself by coming up with this silliness. Nobody occupying my body is slamming Giuffords' condition, or her plight after being shot in the head. Nor any of the family of those shot at any of the mass shootings we've had in our country. IOW, your attempt at personal destruction of me is horsesh*t and silliness wrapped into one.

[TAFBSooner]

Look up what Loughner has said. He is indeed a leftist. I am surprised you are arguing he isn't. You are the one disgracing yourself by coming up with this silliness. Nobody occupying my body is slamming Giuffords' condition, or her plight after being shot in the head. Nor any of the family of those shot at any of the mass shootings we've had in our country. IOW, your attempt at personal destruction of me is horsesh*t and silliness wrapped into one.

No, you weren't slamming Giffords condition, or her plight after being shot in the head. You were claiming that she's being used by the anti-2nd amemdment people. I say that her experience legitimately changed her beliefs on gun rights and regulations. Same thing with the father of one of the Newtown kids. People booing him for speaking his mind were totally out of line.

To use the proper term of art, Loughner is a nutter. Anything he says that might sound like any sort of politics is just a part of the mental stew he's got going on.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rantings-creepy-arizona-mass-murder-suspect-jared-lee-loughner-genocide-school-article-1.154122

Apparently he believes in the Sovereign Citizen idea. That bunch has deep root in Libertarianism, although this article does claim that some liberals have picked up on it. This also has a really interesting section on how the law and psychiatry work in classifying someone as too mentally ill to stand trial.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/01/12/expert-loughner-rants-sound-like-sovereign-citizen-beliefs/

I'm still trying to figure out what I said that implied that you have extra pilots in the cockpit, but I certainly didn't mean that.

[C&CDean]

"Extra pilots in the cockpit." Heh.

I heard Giffords' and Obama's rants yesterday. Crazy/ignorant/clueless x 2.

[Curly Bill]

I have no problem saying Giffords and the Newtown parents are all being used by the anti-2nd Amendment people. Never let a tragedy or the survivors of it go to waste right?

I think we call them: pawns

[olevetonahill]

I have no problem saying Giffords and the Newtown parents are all being used by the anti-2nd Amendment people. Never let a tragedy or the survivors of it go to waste right?

I think we call them: pawns

Agree Bro. I do agree also that they have every right to say what they think, i dont however think that them being Shot or having a child killed gives their opinions any more weight than any one elses

[Curly Bill]

Agree Bro. I do agree also that they have every right to say what they think, i dont however think that them being Shot or having a child killed gives their opinions any more weight than any one elses

Sure, they can say what they want, but because you got shot or had a child shot doesn't make you an expert on guns or the Constitution, and no matter how heartfelt your grief or your pleas, I'm not gonna give up my Constitutional rights just to make you feel better.

[olevetonahill]

Sure, they can say what they want, but because you got shot or had a child shot doesn't make you an expert on guns or the Constitution, and no matter how heartfelt your grief or your pleas, I'm not gonna give up my Constitutional rights just to make you feel better.

Pretty much what I said bro. :very_drunk:

[Curly Bill]

Pretty much what I said bro. :very_drunk:

I know! Great minds.......!!! :smiley_simmons:

[olevetonahill]

I know! Great minds.......!!! :smiley_simmons:

I'll drank to that :very_drunk:

[TAFBSooner]

Sure, they can say what they want, but because you got shot or had a child shot doesn't make you an expert on guns or the Constitution, and no matter how heartfelt your grief or your pleas, I'm not gonna give up my Constitutional rights just to make you feel better.

Nor should you. I'm trying to make a case for giving them some respect, for their loss and for their honest views, not for letting them take away our rights.

I don't figure the political leaders are due any such deference.

[Curly Bill]

Nor should you. I'm trying to make a case for giving them some respect, for their loss and for their honest views, not for letting them take away our rights.

I don't figure the political leaders are due any such deference.

I'm good with what you're saying, but when they become pawns to stand behind Obammy, Biden and their ilk, they become just that - pawns. Or if I wanted to be more harsh about it, I might refer to em as useful idiots.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Agree Bro. I do agree also that they have every right to say what they think, i dont however think that them being Shot or having a child killed gives their opinions any more weight than any one elsesDuh!