# Gun grab



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This place is slow so I am going to post this where everyone will see it and hope it stimulates some discussion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... next-week/



> HONOLULU - President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week despite growing concerns in the United States over terrorism that have dampened some Americans' enthusiasm for tighter firearms restrictions.


Obama doesn't much care if he violates the constitution. He doesn't much care if he bypasses congress which is the representative of the people. He will let in unvetted Muslims, but he will punish innocent Americans for the few radical Muslims, mentally messed up, and when only gun free zones have mass shootings. Sort of like disarming the citizens in Germany pre WWII. I guess some think it would be a shame if some radical was injured while he was killing the innocent. Start reading history and take heed before we repeat it. Just out of curiosity what decade and what country does this remind you of in the 1900's?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Obama is the biggest reason why we need to teach kids about the constitution in elementary and high school. And have classes on it in college.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I doubt there would be much in the way of gun grabs - even the added intelligence of Obama/Boxer/Pelosi and company would have a tough time with the logistics of trying to identify, grab, catalogue and destroy an estimated 300 million guns! Even if it were possible the country couldn't afford it! Canada spent millions just trying to register long guns and found it didn't prevent one crime and finally even up there it was shelved. I believe they still have the PALS program up there, ( possession and licensing system) which is a basic gun safety and regulation training program. A bunch of us took it down here at a local gun club for hunting up in Canada and all agreed there was little we didn't know as far as safety was concerned as we were all avid experienced Hunter's with no beginners among us, but we did learn about their regulations at the time. Surprisingly most of us agreed that some kind of gun education test (akin to drivers ed or Hunter Ed) be acceptable to gun owners down here. Some of their gun safety storage lawsMIGHT make sense down here and pacify some of the more vocal anti gunners, at least for a while! 
I suspect that Obamas proposed executive orders might include a few more background checks and annoying stuff like the Clinton gun laws that have fortunately sun settled and will be little more than partisan hype.

I'm fishing now, but heading to a gun show this afternoon. When Clinton was elected I bought a couple of automatics that I still call my Clinton guns (a Ruser 9 and mini 14) and after looking at the political potential leader lineup I've already bought a couple of Hillary guns! Wish the R's would get with it and quit the nonsense within the party......hopefully run someone who may have a chance of winning.......but I'm not a dreamer either! 
My question.......do I need another gun from the gun show, Plainsman? LOL. That's the dumbest question.....is it possible to have too many guns???? LOL. I suspect you are still ahead of me in quantity and possibly quality of guns, Bruc. Hah! I'd better bring the checkbook, or some plastic! 
I'm more concerned stuff like primers, powder, etc. could be limited by Obama, though it's would be a lot easier for him to pass feel good ineffective universal background checks to placate the voters till Hillary gets in, assuming the political nonsense stays the same.....if H gets in we gun owners will have H to pay!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The gun hole loop hole is imaginary. They don't want an individual to be able to go to a gun show with a title and a for sale sign. They would like a background check for a sale to a friend in your home. Remember the FBI was supposed to destroy information after a couple of months and they were caught with information years old? They never did get rid of that information. If they do a background check for a few years on every sale, including private it will be the same as gun registration. 
All reasonable people know there will be no reduction in violence. Why then are they doing it? I don't believe it is only political.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I hold dear many statements made by our forefathers, those that created the nation some are now trying their best to destroy. Two of them ring out in times like these, both made by the same man--Patrick Henry.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

"Give me Liberty, or give me death."

I fear there are not enough of us left that hold these truths to be self evident.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 said:


> I hold dear many statements made by our forefathers, those that created the nation some are now trying their best to destroy. Two of them ring out in times like these, both made by the same man--Patrick Henry.
> 
> "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."
> 
> ...


 :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: 
I recommend reading When A Nation Forgets God by Erwin Lutzer. It will not make you feel better, but it will tell you how we got here and where we are going if things don't change.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

here is an idea... maybe public service at the federal level should carry the "penalty of death" for violation of law while in that service... maybe that would help keep them on the straight and narrow...........


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Funny..... How the last shooting in San Bernido happened was a "straw purchase".... Which is illegal already. So why does he think he needs an executive order. uke:

I like how on one news outlet. He was quoted as saying, "i got my people looking and scouring to see how I can use an executive order". I think they are running into dead ends because this law is constitutional and other laws are in place to do what he wants. Except the private person to private person sales. Which then would be a slippery slope. Because of how would you regulate or track this stuff. If you do it for guns you need to do it for all sales... ie: clothing, electronics, etc.

If you people will say that is apples to oranges. NO because those sales are not tracked. The only ones are things that need to be licensed.... ie vehicles. So unless he wants to "license" guns. It won't happen.... again protected by the constitution. He knows that it is a losing battle. I think he just wants to say in his last year in office he is trying hard to get things done. uke:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

You hit the nail on the head Chuck, I think he is running out of options, and doesn't want to rock the boat too much right before an election, and have the Democrats loose even more offices.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll bet sites like this will be monitored for gun sales. Especially the two and three guns for sale. This law is aimed at the average American that clings to his Bible and guns. It's not an accident. It will do nothing to stop radical Islamic terrorists. Hmmm.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Bruce, I can't see how anything that has to do with guns has anything to,do,with Bibles!?! 
IMO Obama is just trying to make a few political points and is looking to do something that he can claim that he did,SOMETHING to protect us all. 
The bottom 
One, little can be done to stop gun violence, with 270 million out there already. So by plugging the RIGHTLY CALLED gun show loophole, he can say he did something, blah, blah, blah.......heck at a gun show,for 2 days this last weekend, a lot of the private sellers had big signs out " private sales- no background check required" and I'd bet about 25% of the sellers were "private collectors" ( another common sign! Going through Salt Lake City the other day there was pages of guns for sale, probablym90% falling under the no background check required category. So to say the so called loophole is imaginary or a myth is plain silly. Why not,say " yep there's inconsistency in the,background check hing, though making it across he board probably won't change anything with 270 million out there!" At least that would be honest and wouldn't low gun owners credibility with surf that is,simply NOT true! I hat lies!! Remember the 10 commandments Bruce - one of them is something like thou shalt not li!
And before I get jumped on, there is NO doubt in my mind that closing,the so called loophole,would make any difference whatsoever in gun violence! zEro! I think,some stronger storage require
Meets, safety thing migh help,at least with the domestic murders and more importantly with kids shooing kinds - another 2 year old shot this am a,d two last week! 
Got to go.....see U Bruc, but let's use honest, NOT emotion when dealing with this or,we'll lose!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I hate that they keep calling it the Gun Show Loophole. The regulation/exemption allowing private sales has nothing to do with gun shows. Basically it allows a private party to occasionally sell a gun without having to be a licensed seller. The idea being that such a seller is working in such low volume it is unlikely that they are trafficking firearms.. Requiring every seller of a gun to be a FFL would be an administrative nightmare for the BATF........ I suspect in this day of legal liability IF the background check system was open to private sellers many would use it just to CYA ......

Each year 10s or 100s of thousands of automobiles are sold and not registered by the new owner. I guess our government should require ALL auto sales go through a dealer too.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Each year 10s or 100s of thousands of automobiles are sold and not registered by the new owner. I guess our government should require ALL auto sales go through a dealer too.


Exactly... or how about the sales of any pvt party to another pvt party??

I wonder if Obama has thought of.... Tax implications, tracking implications and costs, the flood of requests going into the FBI for the NIX check, the infra structure needed to accomplish all of this, the tax payers money that it will cost, where will all the funding come, Costs of making people get an FFL, etc.

I have not seen the press coverage yet or what he is "planning" on doing. But it opens a whole can of worms and this could really be bordering on non-constitutional and congress could act swiftly once the "executive order" is full implemented.

HH... I do understand about the "loop hole" and there is a big one at that. People going under the disguise of a "collector" and selling "collections" yet they are making over 100 transactions a year. That isn't a collector that is a dealer. Which is an issue. IMO.

But the thing this executive order will do nothing to stop most mass shootings. If people want to get guns they do. Just like you mentioned. Heck they are finding guns that the government had "confiscated" back on the streets..... Remember FAST AND FURIOUS. But how quickly people forget. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> "We've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules," Obama said in address in the White House East Room.


It is funny how he thinks that criminals play by the rules..... If they followed rules we wouldn't have any criminals. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama- ... li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama- ... li=BBnb7Kz



> Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether buyers have criminal records, are charged with crimes or have *mental health conditions *that would bar them from owning a gun.


doesn't he know that the stuff in bold is protected under privacy acts. People cant divulge mental health status or doctors have to "release" that status many times with patients consent.

This is a whole can of worms he will open up about privacy laws that many times the Democrats fought to have. This one could be interesting and we will see if his "executive order" really follows laws already on the books. Slippery slope he is playing on right now.... very slippery.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Chuck, they could get around the HIPPA regs by simply changing them to allow reporting anyone whom a professional might consider potentially dangerous of a wife beater, etc. having said that, as a previous professional who would have been in this,situation, I'd be BERY careful,when considering it! Personally I'd be afraid of one or two oddballs I've had contact with during My previous long career. Still have the occasional thought or nightmare about one or,two of,these guys. I'd have a tough time forgiving myself if one of,these people ever did a mass shooting, etc. but I,also know that if I reported them and they found out,about it, I'd probably be the first one they a take out.
So change mHIPPA but IMO the beneficial,feet would be limited. How many people or ex wives or husbands or neighbors would mak false reports, etc. you,are right, another ineffective can of,worms opened.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

HH....
Can a president side step laws in place with an executive order??? I don't know this answer.

But im not even talking about HIPPA laws.... Americans with Disabilities act of 1990. Mental and Physical disabilites are a protected class you cant discriminate against. So not allowing someone with PTSD, OCD, ADHD, ADD, etc. (mental illness protected under this act) are not allowed to purchase a firearm. Is that discrimination??? Someone with mental disability/learning disability cant purchase a firearm?? Is this discrimination???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Like I mentioned.... a very big can of worms.

Also like you mentioned about HIPPA... how many dr.'s out of fear wouldn't give out info???

Or like you stated false reports.

Or how about a person who lost a loved one went to talk to someone about depression. Now that Dr. files a claim or makes a note..... Now that person is red flagged for life because they had a small bought with depression?? 
**** This might not be a bad thing but again could be false reporting or a DR. who is anti-gun makes it harder or worse for someone to obtain a gun???

Big problems could be coming down the line here.....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/presid ... li=BBnb7Kz

This kind of explains what he wants or is going to do with this order.

What I find funny is the system in place will work "IF" it was funded and had enough man power. He is hiring 230 more people to handle the checks on the FBI level, he wants states to make the mental illness parts more available (yet states are dealing with funding issues :eyeroll: ), etc.



> An equally big problem is that the system of background checks is notoriously underfunded, understaffed, and underresourced. Although there are no waiting periods under federal law, a check that turns out inconclusive can be extended for three business days. But these three days are a maximum for the government - and sometimes the three days lapse without the FBI completing its check, and a buyer can at that point purchase a gun without the completed check.


You see a system is in place but is under funded..... now where does he think he is going to get the money for all of this????

Like many people have stated on this subject. There are laws in place to keep guns from people. Yet these people still get guns....hmmmm. So more laws will make it harder for criminals to get guns. I will make a comment and it has been said a million times over. If more laws work to keep murders and gun violence down... how come Chicago keeps having increasing number of murders and gun violence??? Chicago is one of the hardest cities to buy a gun, own a gun, and possess a gun.

In the article I posted in the comments section is a very good point. If judges wouldn't keep throwing out gun crimes it would maybe stop some criminals from purchasing guns legally. What I mean is if you get busted for drugs and have possession of a firearm at that time. You get charge with a "gun crime" and it is a felony. So you should never be able to purchase a gun. Yet the first thing the judge throws out is that possession of a firearm crime. Maybe enforce that law. oke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Chuck, they could get around the HIPPA regs by simply changing them to allow reporting anyone whom a professional


My experience with many PhD people is they think they know everything about everything, when in fact the very idea of specializing is that you know much about a very narrow field. In that event it's irresponsible to have a physical doctor making psychological assessments.

I predict people who should go to a psychologist will now not go. The problem will not get better it will get worse.

I would sue the snot out of any doctor who thinks he can make a judgement of my mental state. As a matter of fact I think that is what everyone should do if they find any comments by a physician. Makes no difference if the comments are positive or negative.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

The point is though Bruce, is that if anyone sees somebody that they sincerely believe is " nuts" and looks like they have a good potential of injuring themselves or someone else, they are protected even now from repercussions by reporting them to the proper authorities. Physicians and lay people do it all the time with people with Alzheimer's, various mental states, alcoholism, etc. 
But we're I were to report someone in good faith that h/ she in my professional opinion should NOT have access to a firearm, as long as I did it in good faith I would be very comfortable,with a ND jury and getting sued, even if it would tie up a lot of my time and be a pure PITA! However, safe in court is not the same as safe while on the way home some dark night, as I almost found out! So I almost learns the hard way that people can lose their heads and do or try to do awful things fairly easily! As far as me reporting someone who shouldn't have a firearm, it's a non started with me! ok I'm a good citizen but I'll admit I'm chicken, too!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How about the doc with an anti gun agenda? They are just human like the rest of us. As my kids grew up I noticed their classmates with the most disfunctional families and the most problems themselves went into psychology. I guess maybe psychologist should be the last persons making decisions about who should have a gun. Talked myself out of psychologists as I typed.
Actually HH I have talked with you enough to know I would trust you more than any psychologist. The problem is gov can decide that anyone with a gun is a danger. They can decide ten years from now and start going through medical records.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

HH...

I think plainsman was stating about people not doing it in good faith. Some Dr. with an agenda or a doctor who doesn't have the expertise but is a "doctor" and will put people on the "no go" list for guns. If you don't think doctors are not doing this look at Dr.'s prescribing medical marijuana. Some will get their license in a different state (happening in MT) go there set up a kiosk in a mall or rent out an office space for a week. These are doctors from California doing this. Then everyone comes in with an "ailment" and then get their card refilled for a year. It is a joke. People walk in and say " I have anxiety" no way to prove it but here you go.... or I have pain from a chronic injury years ago... no way to prove it...bam a med marijuana card. These Doctors charge $100 per patient. I know this to be true from a buddy of mine who lives out there and is in law enforcement. My buddy says they have lines out the door when they come into town every year. He said it is a joke and the department is trying to find ways to shut them down but haven't yet. I mean if these ailments were true why wouldn't the normal doctors in MT sign off on their med marijuana cards??? Does it smell fishy to you. But yet this could happen in a reverse way with guns.

But that is one of the issues that could come an executive order the president is wanting. Also like HH mentioned.... doctors might not do it out of fear. After all they are human.... not like lawyers... haha. Kidding.

***** Last night I was watching the news and they showed parts of Obama's Speech. Then they had a guy come on afterwards and I cant remember what was his title or job. But he said, "everything the president wants to do is already on the books or is a law since 1964" or something like that.

That is something many gun advocates have stated over and over. The laws are there just need to enforce then or get funding to the FBI and back ground people so they can do their job to the fullest.

One thing that I see nobody touched on was my point about the drugs and guns. I might not have made it very clear.

Lets just say I was out and about and got pulled over and they found a small amount of drugs on me (100 grams or 3.5 oz). This is bigger than what the government says should be on a person for a "daily" usage (Colorado 2 oz.). I also had a gun in my car. It could be my 870 I left in the car because I was out shooting clays that day. Well now I will get charged with drug possession and felon possession of a fire arm because drugs were present. Now if I go to court the first thing that will get thrown out is the gun possession which is a felony. But I would plea deal for less of a drug possession charges... a misdemeanor. Yet that felony charge would keep me from ever obtaining a firearm again through a store or FFL.

This is on the judicial system. Hammer them with the felony!!!

Now think how this might keep guns out of the hands of some small drug dealers or gang members. Because I know when people bring up Chicago and how hard it is to get firearms people go to the neighboring states and purchase them. Well if the judicial system would hit people up with these felony gun charges it would help curb some of that. Not all of it... but I would say it would cut it by half.

Now those criminals will still find away to get the guns. But this would help.

Again a system is in place to keep firearms out of criminals hands yet the judicial system won't put the hammer down.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you want to see how things can go awry in our legal system go to Netflix and watch Making A Murderer.

Things brought up on the news today. Some people want to make it automatic for a divorce. The cops come and get your guns. I doubt they will take it away from the woman. 
A psychologist said there is little doubt this will backfire. He is certain people who know they need counseling will not go for counseling because they are a gun owner. 
Many people are already busy trying to build on this and make it very restrictive. 
Have you noticed the new California laws. One that I am aware of is people can report someone who they think is a danger. The judge may or may not give them a chance to respond before he sends the police to confiscate their guns. I think it's Virginia that passed a law that you can only get a few cartridges in a day or month or year. I didn't catch the whole thing. This could turn draconian fast.

Oh, I also heard the AMA thinks this is a good thing. That is a big warning right there. Doctors should not have control over denial of constitutional rights. 1937 Germany here we are.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I haven't heard anything from the AMA, Bruce! Most of my doctor buddies are avid Hunter's and there is sure no consensus within the AMA another this. The Pediatricians are another story....rightly or wrongly they are getting a bit tired of seeing a lot of innocent kids getting shot because of unsafe storage of firearms. The ER crowd, too! Yes, it is our " right" to have loaded firearms stashed all overdue homes for protection, but kids playing with guns and improper hand long is what ****** off the Pediatricians. I always get yelled at whenever I post on an outdoor or gun owners website that it beats me why someone will pay 800 bucks for a personal protection handgun then tell me that 50 bucks for a kid proof gun safe will put them in the poorhouse. None of these groups are gun grabbing, theyonly would like to see pediatric gun deaths treated like any other public health problem and researched accordingly! Yet when this is mentioned on any outdoor website you hear screams and teeth gnashing about the " rights " thing again! At least some Rs are now jumping the fence to try to,get research money available to at least look at the problem and see if anything can be done. If the same thousands of kids were dying each year from some disease you could bet there'd be lots of money available to at least look at the problem. But instead we have the 1995 law specifically STOPPING any research!?! Only in America! LOL As stupid as the laws preventing any research on Cannibis, etc. sorry, never smoked it or inhaled it so don't jump on me Bruce! LOL 
That's why I maintain that a more palatable thing for any politician to do would be to try things to tighten up gun safety and storage, and maybe invite public comment on ways to keep guns out of the hands of nuts while leaving the legitimate honest gun owner alone. IMO! Like Obamacare, Obama might mean well enough, but he's doing it all wrong! 
Closing the so called " loophole" ( that even Plainsman now admits to exist) will be about as effective as a fart in a high wind, or pissing on a forest fire! With an empty bladder, too! IMHO
Heck, I buy and sell a few guns and am a gun tinkerer, probably buy more than sell as my shrinking guns safes indicate, but till now I wasn't aware that I could go on gunbroker or any Internet website and buy a gun and have it shipped to me directly, and not through an FFL holder!?! Didn't know that, nor did our " fishing from the dock and solving the woes of the world old guys" coffee group. News to most of us, and to a man we are all gun owners and Hunter's.

Chuck, lots of billboards advertising " get your medical marijuana license in 10 minutes, call ......" Silly! I dunno why the powers that be just don't legalize it! But this is off topic. I doubt you'd find any physicians advertising..." Get a complaint to the ATF against your neighbor or EX in 5 minutes," not the same thing. 
Though they lack specialized training like say a psychiatrist or psychologist, most physicians are cognizant enough about their patients to recognize at least some unstable powder keg individuals. I doubt you'd get many reports to the gun authorities, unless the whole family was behind the doctor, like usually happens, almost always in fact when someone is legally committed for treatment or to take a drivers license away, etc.
The slippery slope, as Bruce says?? Maybe, but this concern underscores the importance of the R's running someone who might have a good chance tout score Hillary in Nov! Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see anyone yet! Sorry...off topic....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

HH...

I think the Doctor thing I was bringing up is like this. Husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. They say we need to go to talk out our problems (before divorce or a separation). Then one of the couples will have the DR. put the other one on the no go list out of spite.

or

Doctors with agenda's will put someone on the list... or do things for $$$$. You don't think a lobby group could throw money towards a Doctor to have them "lean" in a certain direction with their patients. Look at any pharma company out there. :eyeroll:

That is my take is that Doctors will do stuff for $$$ or to push an agenda or side with one client over another. After all they are human.

HH... I am not sure if what you say about gun broker is 100% correct. I thought if any gun is mailed it has to go to an FFL dealer. Now it might not have to do a back ground check but has to be shipped to an FFL. Because I won a gun in a drawing out of state. they sent me the paperwork to fill out for the back ground check. I filled it out but then they said they had to ship it to an FFL and that is where I had to pick it up. Well I had it shipped to a place where I buy guns from and they did run another check on me. Just because they didn't want the liability incase something would happen. Which to me isn't a big deal. Maybe that is different for each state. But just something I had to go through.

Also I agree with the people saying about a gun safe or some sort of safety system with kids in the house. Maybe our law system will have to go after parents where these accidents happen. I mean a $5 gun lock. Plus many cities or police stations will give gun locks out for free. But you can buy safes that you can put a pistol in, type in a 3 digit code or even a palm reading and whammy you got your gun in seconds.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

That's what I thought too! Doesn't an online or caTaligent gun sale have to go thru an FFL?

I'd doubt any docs would be paid by any group or individual to report borderline or no problem cases! Licensing boards and ethics committees come down hard on that kind of BS! Most wouldn't want to get involved for medical legal or safety reasons!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I haven't heard anything from the AMA, Bruce!


Heard it on tv as I was typing. Didn't catch the whole thing.



> it beats me why someone will pay 800 bucks for a personal protection handgun then tell me that 50 bucks for a kid proof gun safe will put them in the poorhouse.


Lol, ya sounds like the guys who spend $100 in the bar on Saturday night and ***** about the price of deer license. My safe weighs 700 lbs and it's in the basement. They may be able to carry it, but the stairs will not support them, and they will not get it open. I need to go through my safe and sell anything I have not shot for five years. Get rid of it while I can. When does this thing take affect. I hope muzzleloaders stay exempt.



> Closing the so called " loophole" ( that even Plainsman now admits to exist) will be about as effective as a fart in a high wind


I think you kidding, but I can't tell. There never has been a gun show loop hole. What they are trying to close are people who sell their personal used guns. I remember when you could stick a dowel down the barrel of your rifle with an attached for sale sign. That's the big "loop hole" they have fits about. It's no different than selling it to a guy who comes to your house.

Just found out the last Trusts were signed today. Now for a suppressor the ATF or was it FBI will require finger prints, photo ID, chief law enforcement officer of your community sign off signature, and a few more hoops to jump through. Even if you have your paper work in your screwed.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I read last night an article about how vague the "for profit" is. It doesn't state 10 gun or 100 guns. I mean it just said, "for profit". Then it also stated that the courts have up held a gun trafficking law with someone selling only two guns.

Now that is a huge issue. I mean I got guns handed down to me for generations and if I sell them "for a profit" am I know in this category? I mean these guns I got for free and I could sell two of them for about $2000 a pop. Now think about that? Now am I a gun trafficker because I made $4000 on the sale? or am I a "for profit" dealer because I could make some decent money on a gun sale???

I for one still see this executive order once it is "implemented" getting repealed ASAP by congress and the judicial system. Because it is so broad and vague.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Bruce, you only have ONE gun safe? I'm ashamed of you! Mine all keep getting smaller and smaller and my guns won't fit very well any more! Either my guns are getting bigger or my safes are shrinking over the years! 
Call it what you want, but closing this so called loophole will be about as effective to stop violence and unsafe gun use will be as effective as a......... Whatever....it'll be a bit of a pain for us occasional sellers though!
Educate me someone- I thought gun sales via mail had to be sent they an FFL!?' Still confused. I've never bought this way except once and that was thru a friend FFL. 
Yep, the for profit thing might apply to any of us old antique collectors or hand me downs. Another vague silly regulation unless the seller sold dozens of guns per year out his back yard. Might be used to help establish culpabity in case of a serious shooting! I'd hate to sell a handgun to someone who seemed nutty, then find out a week later he took out a movie theater or school room! Might make a borderline dealer think, but again, pretty ineffective IMO! All the survivors would be after you if you had a deep pocket or even no pocket at all!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

HH no one, without going through licensed dealer, has been able to order through a catalogue or online since 1968.


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

*I guess I am sort of on the short end as I do not believe we get to elect people above the local level*, OH YA many of us go and vote and who do we vote for? We vote for the ones with the most money to spend on ads for the media. And where does that money come from? Not the average citizen that is for sure as the candidates could not get along with the nickels and dimes we citizens send. the money comes from rich people, rich corporations. Once they have been chosen by the wealthy we are told we can vote which one of those bought and paid for candidates we get to vote for.
Most times, well these days we get to elect candidates who could care less about the masses and the constitution.

Think Trump is going to be the savior of the masses? First I would be surprised if the GOP doesn't screw him and not nominate him but if they did I can see him turning on the people for the almighty dollar. Not to mention the GOP and the Dems both do not like him so I can not see anything getting done in the congress.

Remember how the GOP say they will protect our gun owning rights? Is my memory faulty? Didn't the Brady's belong to the GOP Party?
I don't trust any of them.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't trust any of them.


Me either. To bad we can't draft a man for president. You can't trust the ones that want to be president.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is getting to me.

You keep hearing in the news about internet sales and not having to pass back ground checks.

Well no firearm per federal law can be mailed to an individual. It has to be mailed to an FFL. So the "internet" sales will have to be done face to face. Like on this site.... if I want a gun forsale in the classifieds. I need to drive or meet the person selling that fire arm.

So when you are having this converstation with someone..... Tell them well it is illegal to ship guns via mail without them going to an FFL. Then to be honest... that falls on the FFL liability if they don't do a back ground check when that person picks it up.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

alleyyooper said:


> *I guess I am sort of on the short end as I do not believe we get to elect people above the local level*,  Al


WE actually don't vote for president.....We submit our vote for an electorate to vote for the president of our choice. That electorate actually does the voting based on the public vote. But here is the hitch....He has no legal obligation to cast his vote in the direction the public vote has determined. In almost all cases they do but it is not a requirement. And most states have adopted a winner takes all process for their electoral votes. So you could have a candidate that takes 49% of the public vote and the other that takes 51% and the latter gets ALL the electoral votes. Now for most states this probably isn't that big a deal but for swing states like Florida or California it is huge........ take even 1/3 of those electoral votes and give them to the other candidate and it lessens the impact of those states and potentially changes the winner. This is how the public vote can be in favor of a candidate yet he still loses the election.

FWIW word is Congress has already stated it WILL NOT fund Obamas actions.


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

I know about the electrol college but it has already started before it gets to that point.

Tell me do you know how the person running for President in the Libertarian party stands on gun control? Do you even know Who ran for president of that party at the last election Maybe I should re phrase that, Did you know?

You see all the money was spent by the GOP and the Dems so people didn't know squat about any of the other candidate's because they don't have the billions to spend on ads. We many times don't even know who is running in other parties or what they stand for.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As much as I distrust Russia they do their elections right. Well, they are set up to be done right, but perhaps are corrupted like ours. As I understand Russian elections ten people can run if they want to. No primaries like here. Then after the election their is another election of the top two from the first election. That would be like a vote now for all the democrats, republicans, libertarians, socialists etc, then a run off of our top two. Bill Clinton never would have been president because big ears Perot would not have sucked up a portion of the conservative votes. Also the democrats and republicans ( perverts and money worshipers) wouldn't have a stranglehold on the election.


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

I think all communist elections are rigged.
It would be so easy to fix our process. but you will never see it happen, *ELECTION REFORM.* 
Money spent by any person not to excide a couple million Party can not contribute any for their candidate.
Once you take the billions of dollars out of the equation the footing is more equal but then you would probably have ballot stuffing.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It would be so easy to fix our process. but you will never see it happen, ELECTION REFORM.


Even if it cost the taxpayer in the short run I would like to see the government give each candidate ten million and allow no contributions. We need to put the brakes on lobbyists somehow also. Our congressmen are not supposed to take gifts. They go on week long trips to the Caribbean and other destinations at no expense. Maybe we should require that be called a gift. There are many gifts disguised as meetings, conferences, etc. I was thinking to keep these conferences from becoming family vacations they could not allow wives along, but more than half these low lives in Washington would consider that a benefit. Look out Island girls.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Yep Alleyooper! I guess I'd have a tough time thinking that Communist elections have any advantage with fairness to our system here, despite the electoral college system. Deciding a president on popular vote numbers might make some of us on this website cry foul! It's not that unusual when the president is elected despite NOT winning the popular vote, thanks to the electoral college system.
Like anything, every system you look at has its advantages and disadvantages, usually with the loser always calling foul! The British Parliamentary system has some advantages and disadvantages, despite its coalition governments and multiple,parties.
Sometimes after banging my voter head against the wall I even wonder about the " benevolent dictator " thing. At least things would get done and not hopelessly stalled in lower houses, for better or for worse. How to elect the perfect benevalent dictator is the rub! lol
At least I have faith that our system, though not perfect, is as good or than the system in most other countries in the world. Not perfect, but then what is?


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

Ten million per candidate it way to much. Cut them back to maybe 2 million each. That way you would not get year long TV ads maybe just one during prime time, no automated phone calls Just mailed out flyers you can so easily chuck where they mostly belong.

Prohibit any travel not paid for on their own dime. Of course they are all millionaires so would be hard to catch them cheating, Of course they all do cheat too.

We have had the two party ruling system for a very long time with other party's in the mix and it has always pretty much worked in Washington. Appears to me the splinter group(s) are the ones raising cane and nothing meaningful getting done. there seems to be just enough of them they are able to put the monkey wrench in the gear cogs.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My main point is that a run off of the two most popular prevents a spoiler like Ross Perot from a good, perhaps best candidate. When zJesse Jackson considered running the democrats somehow talked him out of it. Perot was conservative and Bush was conservative splitting the vote and putting Bill Clinton in office. I wonder if Clinton made any promises to Perot?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)




----------

