Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by neo96
 


I am certain that they are referring to the NICS instant check and not a full background check. A full background check isn't even feasible just due to the fees involved let alone the manpower involved to handle the volume of gun purchases that would be coming through.
edit on 4/10/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't be so sure when it comes to the Us federal government it's capacity for stupidity has no limits.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 



if i just go putting up post-it notes on bulletin boards in town saying gun for sale but am not charged for this advertising that would then not require a background check?


Of course there would be no way to enforce private party sales like that. The only way to even come close would be with a national registry and they don’t have the votes for that….yet.

By the way, I used to read on ATS all the time that there is no gun grab going on. Would anyone like to carry that water still?? Are you still buying all the double-speak???





posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


It takes about a day for the Congressional Record to get transcribed. That aside, there is nothing regarding "guns" on the Senate Judicary Committee's schedule according to the website.

This leads me to believe this is an amendment to a bill already out of committee, but until the Record is updated, no telling where it will be at. Congress is known to attach some far-out amendments to bills that don't even pertain to the original bill.

Later today should shed some light on it. If not, then yes; call in full force and demand to know what bill this amendment is being attached to!



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Of course there would be no way to enforce private party sales like that. T


To me sounds like they just legalized that person who sells guns out of their trunk.

It is a private person to person transaction no advertising, no online sales.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



To me sounds like they just legalized that person who sells guns out of their trunk.


It’s been legal, has it not? If I own 200 guns and decide to sell them, I’m under no obligation to make sure the person I’m selling it to has a background check.

Most people I know have been buying A LOT of used (private party) guns this year because they are untraceable. If a gun registry was imposed, those guns would NEVER be registered.


Even if guns were completely banned there would still be a black market for guns….lots of guns! Look at Australia!



Nothing congressing is proposing has a chance of stopping gun violence. It's never been about gun violence.

edit on 10-4-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Ending the gun show loop hole is a pretty good start. I don't see any need to ban anything that isn't already legal to own, but I sure as hell want every single gun sale in this country to be subject to the same background checks. Even private sales need this requirement.

There isn't some magic gun factory that only makes guns for criminals to buy. They are originally bought legally, and due to a failure in the current laws, they eventually end up in the hands of a criminal due to no background checks on the subsequent sales.

I own guns, and I would never consider selling one of them to anyone! That could change is the background check was required for ALL sales.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Yeah Dog and Pony show indeed when Manchin was campaigning to get re-elected the dude aired a video of him shooting the Cap and Trade.



edit on 10-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 



Ending the gun show loop hole is a pretty good start. I don't see any need to ban anything that isn't already legal to own, but I sure as hell want every single gun sale in this country to be subject to the same background checks. Even private sales need this requirement.


This new legislation won’t change that!

I can sell one of my guns today (or 6 months from now) and I’m under no new obligation because of this legislation. How can I be held to account for selling a gun that you don’t even know I own??



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I must be missing something. If you buy from an FFL at a shop, online or a gunshow you always have to pass a check.

As a non-FFL you can sell to anyone who you believe could pass a check (friends, family, neighbors).

So what would this bill change?

Cant I call you a friend after hanging out for an hour in the afternoon as I sell you a gun?

It doesnt sound like this bill would actually do anything.

For that I am glad. For even making the gesture of "compromise" I am angered, offended and want to see these "A+" rated snakes lose their seats.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Ending the gun show loop hole is a pretty good start. I don't see any need to ban anything that isn't already legal to own, but I sure as hell want every single gun sale in this country to be subject to the same background checks. Even private sales need this requirement.

There isn't some magic gun factory that only makes guns for criminals to buy. They are originally bought legally, and due to a failure in the current laws, they eventually end up in the hands of a criminal due to no background checks on the subsequent sales.

I own guns, and I would never consider selling one of them to anyone! That could change is the background check was required for ALL sales.


And how would you handle the stolen firearms? Background checks don't stop criminals from purchasing guns illegally, it just keeps honest people jumping through more hoops. Not saying that they are not helping deter criminals from getting guns, but they aren't stopping them from getting them either.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No, I get that. I don't even think there should be a reason to try to figure out guns already owned by anyone. Grandfather that in, and move forward starting tomorrow. My point is, while they can't necessarily prove whether you sold a gun you owned or not (in the future), if that gun was used in a crime, they could logically follow it's sales history to the point in which someone did not follow said new law regarding the private sale of a gun.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

And how would you handle the stolen firearms? Background checks don't stop criminals from purchasing guns illegally, it just keeps honest people jumping through more hoops. Not saying that they are not helping deter criminals from getting guns, but they aren't stopping them from getting them either.


A buddy of mine in Law Enforcement estimated that 90% of stolen guns are NEVER returned to their owners because most people don’t even know the serial numbers of their weapons. Without reporting the serial number of the stolen gun the gun can’t even be considered STOLEN!! How would you identify it if you don’t know the serial number?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 





Ending the gun show loop hole is a pretty good start. I don't see any need to ban anything that isn't already legal to own, but I sure as hell want every single gun sale in this country to be subject to the same background checks. Even private sales need this requirement.


Others like myself will disagree and think we do not need government's permission to own a firearm, more so we have problems with being labeled guilty, and have to prove our innocence each and every time we buy a gun.

Thought Amerika was all about being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


And I agree with everything you said. You are right, it wouldn't stop a criminal from buying a gun illegally. Would it stop you from selling a gun to a criminal? I know I sure wouldn't ever sell one of my guns to someone I did not know, not knowing how it might be used. Right now, I can do this legally. I would like to make that private sale subject to the same rules a licensed dealer must use.

To that end, this is a start.
edit on 10-4-2013 by usernameconspiracy because: added



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 



No, I get that. I don't even think there should be a reason to try to figure out guns already owned by anyone. Grandfather that in, and move forward starting tomorrow.


So how effective is this law if it grandfathers in 300 MILLION unregistered/untraceable guns?


Pointless, right??



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

A buddy of mine in Law Enforcement estimated that 90% of stolen guns are NEVER returned to their owners because most people don’t even know the serial numbers of their weapons. Without reporting the serial number of the stolen gun the gun can’t even be considered STOLEN!! How would you identify it if you don’t know the serial number?




I wonder how many of the stolen firearms that are recovered would be returned even if they had the serial numbers? I also wonder how many are even recovered at all? You are correct though, most people don't even keep track of the serial numbers or condition of their firearms which is important not only for reporting in the event they are stolen, but also for your insurance if you have them insured that is.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Others like myself will disagree and think we do not need government's permission to own a firearm, more so we have problems with being labeled guilty, and have to prove our innocence each and every time we buy a gun.


I second that!!
When did the second amendment change to {A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms after passing a government mandated background check to determine eligibility, shall not be infringed.}




Thought Amerika was all about being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.






edit on 10-4-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I've done lots of background checks at gun shows and FFL retail gun shops...all in a matter of 5-15 minutes.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
reply to post by neo96
 


I've done lots of background checks at gun shows and FFL retail gun shops...all in a matter of 5-15 minutes.


What?

That's not what they tell me!

"Gunshow loophole" ,and all that rubbish.

Thats why Manchin and Toomey want to pass that asinine bill because it's suppose to save children!
edit on 10-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Im not really sure if I understand this bill....

www.weeklystandard.com...


Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks


......Really?

So this bill really just dosent do anything.

Oh hey Neo, you're my friend, so I can sell you a glock 19 with no background check because you're my friend.

So if Im at a gun show, and a private seller there has a gun I want to buy, what's to stop us from just saying we're friends, and avoiding the background check?





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join