PDA

View Full Version : To you in favor of more gun control laws...



OU_Sooners75
4/18/2013, 06:58 PM
Do you really know what gun control laws and regulations are in place already?

Here is a quick reference to part of the Gun Control Act of 1968:



AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9


(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


Exceptions as quoted from DEFINITIONS GCA Sec.921 (a)(33)(B):
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.





The Federal Firearms License (FFL) System:

The Gun Control Act mandated the licensing of individuals and companies engaged in the business of selling firearms. This provision effectively prohibited the direct mail order of firearms (except antique firearms) by consumers and mandated that anyone who wants to buy a gun in an interstate transaction from a source other than a private individual must do so through a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Act also banned unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their state of residence. The interstate purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) was not impeded by the Act so long as the seller is federally licensed and such a sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the state of residence.
Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic.
Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales.

A person who does not have a Federal Firearms License may not be in the business of buying or selling firearms. Individuals buying and selling firearms without a federal license must be doing so from their own personal collection.
Under the Gun Control Act, a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector shall not sell or deliver any rifle or shotgun or ammunition for rifle or shotgun to any individual less than 18 years of age, nor any handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any individual less than 21 years of age.



The Brady Bill (which introduced background checks):


Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:


Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Has a record of being a felon


From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials. In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.






All that posted, what more do you want? A national registry of firearms? That, IMO, is a little too far and can lead to gun confiscation by the government.

rock on sooner
4/18/2013, 07:07 PM
I agree 100% about the law...bummer they aren't better enforced.
I fundamentally disagree that registering firearms leads to confiscation.
Many of you believe that but the just defeated bill specifically allowed
for that NOT to happen. Some of the stuff attached was even more
restrictive....by PUBS!... jus sayin'...

olevetonahill
4/18/2013, 07:14 PM
I agree 100% about the law...bummer they aren't better enforced.
I fundamentally disagree that registering firearms leads to confiscation.
Many of you believe that but the just defeated bill specifically allowed
for that NOT to happen. Some of the stuff attached was even more
restrictive....by PUBS!... jus sayin'...


Tell THAT to those folks down there in nawleans

rock on sooner
4/18/2013, 08:46 PM
Tell THAT to those folks down there in nawleans

Not sure about your point but, having spent some time in and
around Nawlins, most of those Cajuns shunt be allowed in public,
much less armed...

OU_Sooners75
4/18/2013, 09:12 PM
What is your point rock?

I know plenty of Okies that fit that bill as well.

My point of this thread is, everyone that is for more gun regulations want more background checks and crap...they are already in place. What needs to happen is better enforcement, not more regulations.

Midtowner
4/18/2013, 09:16 PM
All that posted, what more do you want? A national registry of firearms? That, IMO, is a little too far and can lead to gun confiscation by the government.

Registration and confiscation are two VERY different issues constitutionally.

OU_Sooners75
4/18/2013, 09:18 PM
Registration and confiscation are two VERY different issues constitutionally.

And here comes lil Einstein trying to mix words.

Bravo dumb@ss!

That said, no shlt sherlock!

I know comprehension wasn't taught in school when you went through...but they offer it now.

olevetonahill
4/18/2013, 09:18 PM
Registration and confiscation are two VERY different issues constitutionally.

Yup, Ya got to have the 1st one in order to implement the second one.

TAFBSooner
4/18/2013, 10:07 PM
Registration and confiscation are two VERY different issues constitutionally.

And your evidence that the government today cares about the Constitution is . . .?

SCOUT
4/19/2013, 12:42 AM
Registration and confiscation are two VERY different issues constitutionally.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." That seems pretty different that the way it works today. Give a little power and a lot of power is taken.

achiro
4/19/2013, 07:10 AM
Liberals apparently don't ever think about the future. They spend without any worries about what can happen down the road. They want gun control and say the gubment won't ever confiscate. Do I think they would confiscate or become "tyrannical" any time soon? No i don't but what about 25, 50, even 100 years down the road?

SoonerorLater
4/19/2013, 09:45 AM
There are all kinds of laws right now that COULD be enforced so an educated guess would be that none of this is really about passing a bill that prevents gun violence and crimes. IMO it's about two things, posturing for a leftist electorate full of naive wannabe do-gooders and laying a path to provide legal backing to a database and and eventual gun confiscation. Incrementalism is to the Progressive-Socialist Playbook what a Dive Play in the B gap is to Football.

rock on sooner
4/19/2013, 11:02 AM
What is your point rock?

I know plenty of Okies that fit that bill as well.

My point of this thread is, everyone that is for more gun regulations want more background checks and crap...they are already in place. What needs to happen is better enforcement, not more regulations.

My only point about Cajuns is along the lines of your
point about Okies, nothing more. BTW, Iowa has the
same bunch...they come out once a year...at the State
Fair.

As to more gun regs, I agree about enforcing what is
already on the books. As to background, I think something
should be done to increase scrutiny of mental deficiencies.

TAFBSooner
4/19/2013, 12:40 PM
Liberals apparently don't ever think about the future. They spend without any worries about what can happen down the road. They want gun control and say the gubment won't ever confiscate. Do I think they would confiscate or become "tyrannical" any time soon? No i don't but what about 25, 50, even 100 years down the road?

Hey, if they really wait 50 or more years I don't have to worry about it! Somehow I don't think that's the number they have in mind.

TAFBSooner
4/19/2013, 12:50 PM
While some of you were arguing about the relative merits of Cajuns and Okies, you might have missed Vet's point that the National Guard already did confiscate weapons in the aftermath of Katrina. Under Bush the Lesser. This happened whether or not the owners were acting illegally, suspiciously, or were just wading while Cajun/wading while black.

. . . which preceded the confiscation of weapons from a New York resident earlier this year because he had been prescribed something for a temporary mental health condition. Under Obama. Again, the citizen in question had done nothing wrong.

This is not proof that the government is going to confiscate everybody's weapons. But it looks like they're not agin' it.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/20/2013, 02:45 AM
Hey, if they really wait 50 or more years(for weapons confiscation) I don't have to worry about it! Somehow I don't think that's the number they have in mind.What do you think they would prefer?

rock on sooner
4/20/2013, 04:59 PM
While some of you were arguing about the relative merits of Cajuns and Okies, you might have missed Vet's point that the National Guard already did confiscate weapons in the aftermath of Katrina. Under Bush the Lesser. This happened whether or not the owners were acting illegally, suspiciously, or were just wading while Cajun/wading while black.

. . . which preceded the confiscation of weapons from a New York resident earlier this year because he had been prescribed something for a temporary mental health condition. Under Obama. Again, the citizen in question had done nothing wrong.

This is not proof that the government is going to confiscate everybody's weapons. But it looks like they're not agin' it.
Not certain ifn youve ever been around Cajun folk that are upset, but, imo,
it was prolly prudent to take away guns from 'em...I served in the service
with some of em...holy crap...them folks are dangerous (and don't think a
lot of things through...jus sayin)

TAFBSooner
4/20/2013, 07:44 PM
Not certain ifn youve ever been around Cajun folk that are upset, but, imo,
it was prolly prudent to take away guns from 'em...I served in the service
with some of em...holy crap...them folks are dangerous (and don't think a
lot of things through...jus sayin)

Who's in favor of putting a question about being Cajun on the background check form?

See "incrementalism."

MR2-Sooner86
4/20/2013, 08:35 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bSGTbCb.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/jyX1n.jpg

rock on sooner
4/20/2013, 09:17 PM
Who's in favor of putting a question about being Cajun on the background check form?

See "incrementalism."

Not in favor of that, but am in favor of somehow figuring out
if an applicant has violent/criminal tendencies.....

radio
4/21/2013, 12:22 PM
After all this sh!t in Boston, Denver, CT and whatnot especially Boston. They wont need a registry. No 4th amendment, No worries!

sappstuf
4/22/2013, 11:57 AM
The Boston Bombers didn't obey gun laws?? I'm shocked.. Shocked!!


The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

Yet somehow they had guns and explosives....

StoopTroup
4/22/2013, 01:18 PM
Not in favor of that, but am in favor of somehow figuring out
if an applicant has violent/criminal tendencies.....

Figuring it out huh?

I give you....Minority Report. The movie is OK but the book really gets you the World you are looking for.