It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama starts his move against Firearms...as he said he would.

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So, criminals (with felonies) just walk into stores and buy brand new guns?



edit on 29-8-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)


No...LLCs and Corporations aka Gun Trusts walk into stores and "buy new guns"...ANYONE can become an LLC. or Gun Trust...there are even lawyers that advertise doing just that for you for very little money. There is no requirement for background checks...AND they circumvent federal restrictions....which is the loop-hole the POTUS closed.

What are you missing?
edit on 30-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Dorner ?

Wasn't a felon was he ?



What does that matter? He could have been Al-Qaida on the terrorist watch list and still the outcome would have been the same. He purchased his weapons via a gun-trust...no background check what-so-ever...no federal restrictions...purchaser listed as "blah blah LLC" ..



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Because when I posted about folks that deal/sell guns to criminals your solution was pretty specific and focused on the purchaser?


I guess I could have been a bit clearer as I didn't mean it to be snarky in double meaning at all. However, the guy illegally selling a weapon is, by definition of the act, a felon in possession.


If you read the article I provided about the MN gun runner...that is the issue? He isn't doing anything illegal really. He's not required to run background checks for personal sales...hell even after the guns he sold were used in drug deals and a drive by shooting...the feds finally only were able to slap him on the wrist with a fine and probation.


Originally posted by wrabbit2000
At the same time, logic and moderation here. Respect for Rights. That's my general position and 'the middle' to some. I just see it as logical. The feds have no business now or ever with a perm. registry of who owns a firearm in this nation and they don't need it for investigative purposes.


OK Rabbit...just to be clear, though the entrenched "coming for your guns" crew would disagree with me...I support the 2nd Amendment...I own guns...My father owns guns...My sister owns guns...I grew up with guns in the house. I also believe in restricting guns getting into the hands of criminals in any way possible, ditto mentally ill folks...ditto background checks...ditto not letting people circumvent the checks at gun-shows or via LLC like Dorner did.

I am not for a "National Registry"...and that is not what your OP is about.


Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Track illegal guns by the systems they currently have and by old fashioned cop type stuff. You know, the stuff modern cops think is stupid and old school. Silly nonsense like working up from the street punk to the seller, to the distributor or licensed dealer it originally shipped to.........or the reverse, as shipping records allow. No national ownership registry needed. It exists for nothing else by this logic or of this nature. It shouldn't here.


Even when this happens there are very few laws for consequences....There are something like only 6 states that have a penalty (small fine) for not reporting a gun stolen.

So Joe Blow can purchase 30 guns...sell them on the street...two years later one of his guns shows up at a crime scene and by some miracle they are able to trace it to his original purchase (which is rare)..but it has happened. Joe blow says...yah...all 30 of those guns were stolen from my house 2 years ago...So what? Cops can't do a thing. OR he can say...Yah I sold that gun to some guy, don't remember his name...No federal law requires he keep records or run a background check for personal sales...and many states don't either (see MN article).

I don't see how anything with a chance of passing would impact me, a law abiding gun owner...and I don't understand the extreme folks who want no laws surrounding guns.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
Quite honestly, this is a joke. No one is using M-1 Garands or Carbines to commit crimes. Nor is anyone using any legally purchased and registered automatic weapons to commit crimes. This is totally, utterly and completely pointless and won't hurt anyone but legitimate, responsible owners.

And this guy wonders why 2nd amendment advocates don't trust him at all.


Reality disagrees...and it isn't just Carbines?



Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who embarked on a weeklong assault on law enforcement officers this month that ended with his death on Feb. 12, said in a rambling 11,000-word manifesto that he had used a gun trust to buy silencers and a short-barreled rifle from a gun store in Nevada without a background check.

....

A growing number of shooting enthusiasts are creating legal trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers or other items whose sale is restricted by federal law — a mechanism that bypasses the need to obtain law enforcement approval or even undergo criminal background checks.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The bit about the carbines and Garands is regarding the importation ban.

If these trust rules were in place back then would Dorner have been able to get his equipment?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


100% agree with you there.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The bit about the carbines and Garands is regarding the importation ban.

If these trust rules were in place back then would Dorner have been able to get his equipment?


Yes, but that doesn't matter when selling fear. If he was a convicted felon he wouldn't have been a commissioned officer.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


Nice try but what does it have to do with gun rights?


If you actually read the Thread, you would find out.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
OTOH, you seem against mandating Identification to exercise one Constitutional right but insist on bans and background and restrictions on another Constitutional right.


All "Constitutional rights" should be treated equally.


Background checks for both or neither. Would you agree?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The bit about the carbines and Garands is regarding the importation ban.

If these trust rules were in place back then would Dorner have been able to get his equipment?


No. He purchased Class 3 weapons and a silencer via a trust he created on Quicken. It allowed him to circumvent federal restrictions and background checks.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The bit about the carbines and Garands is regarding the importation ban.

If these trust rules were in place back then would Dorner have been able to get his equipment?


No. He purchased Class 3 weapons and a silencer via a trust he created on Quicken. It allowed him to circumvent federal restrictions and background checks.


So Dorner couldnt pass a background check?

I dont need a trust to buy class 2 or 3 items. Neither do you. Why would Dorner have not been able to buy them without the trust?

I'll ignore the fiction about machineguns without background checks for now because if you answer honestly you'll see the pointlessness.

From the NYT article:

Mr. Dorner was not a felon and probably would have passed a background check had he received one.

edit on 30-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Mr. Dorner was not a felon and probably would have passed a background check had he received one.

edit on 30-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


The fact that he "probably" would have passed a background check is irrelevant.

Because he purposely circumvented one.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Mr. Dorner was not a felon and probably would have passed a background check had he received one.

edit on 30-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


The fact that he "probably" would have passed a background check is irrelevant.

Because he purposely circumvented one.


Do we know he did? Having been into firearms for the past 30 years and having plenty of friends and relatives with NFA trusts I dont know of one who did not receive a check at some point in the process.

So do we know that Dorner actually circumvented anything?

When a representative of a trust goes to pick up the item they cant just hand it over to some guy. That guy has to be cleared as a non-felon by NICS or the dealer is committing a crime trust or no trust.


There are basically three types of individuals in a gun trust: grantor/settlor, trustee, and beneficiary.

The grantor, or settlor, is the person who sets up the trust. This is usually the individual who wants to register and own Title 2 weapons but also wants other people to be able to use and possess those weapons. The grantor will submit the application to ATF but instead of registering the weapon in their name, he or she will list the trust as the owner. Trustees are individuals who, along with the grantor, will hold the trust property for the beneficiary. Trustees may legally possess NFA weapons in the trust even though they are not listed on the application. Trustees must be at least 18 years old (federal law prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing NFA weapons, and anyone under 21 from purchasing NFA weapons from a Class 3 dealer) and not be otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. Finally, the beneficiary is the individual who receives the trust property upon the death of the grantor. The grantor can list as many beneficiaries as he or she likes, and there is no age requirement under federal law to be a beneficiary. Thus minor children can be named beneficiaries, and should the grantor die before the beneficiary is of age to take possession a trustee can be designated to hold onto the trust property.
Overview of NFA trusts


What won’t a Gun Trust do?

A Gun Trust will not allow you to bypass the required background check when purchasing a firearm. The Trustee is still required to submit a photograph and fingerprints, register the gun with the BATFE and request permission to move the gun across state lines.
Wood Atter & Wolf PA

It's cool if you just want gun control. Be honest about it. But dont use lies as your justification. There is no loophole. This whole thing is a fairy tale.
edit on 30-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



One deals with US military weapons and the re-importation of them for public sale. This is more of a contract stipulation and the President does have the ability to approve/disapprove items being imported into this country...especially when it is our own Military equipment coming back to us. If nothing else, it can come under National Security. The other is just a stupid side effect of Citizens United where a CORPORATION can register a gun. Now, that is just dumb. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect Corporations rights to bear arms. This is an enforcement issue of current law, which is exactly what the executive branch is supposed to do. Good job on Obama, and two logical orders to close some loopholes. Does anyone actually disagree with these orders on their merit?


Well corporations are people, and the definition is not as concrete as one would think. But what is to be considered that some of these corporation entities and there owners and shareholders and everything in tow have there own little private armies. So if corporations are people and if they have there own private armies that just means would be allowed to carry military grade arms in the country and be armed. So in a way blocking there kind of making sure there competitors dont have a possible standing army in and around the populous.

As for merits. Who knows probably a long list of goods and bads. On the whole criminals or felons getting military grade arms. Well I am sure if somebody really wanted to they could, I mean every warlord in the middle east or in Africa or Mexico seems to have military grade arms, some from American companies some from Russian and some from Chinese, though the chines dont seem to focus as much on the small hand held gun as the other, but ya kind of hard to worry about the guy with the assault rifle when you could get that rpg or missile for a discount. But on a citizen level, lets just say felons owning guns may just be the least of the problems when the real criminals may be certified to conceal and carry and keep the peace and interests of there employee. There are a lot of resources under the American soils, one day some time from now when those run dry, the party is going to be coming home. And we all are going to be getting a taste of what we exported around the world. Notice this is about keeping exported military grade arms from coming back in the country.



edit on 30-8-2013 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Im a bit torn on the subject of gun control.
It works fine here in Denmark. In the past 10 years, we have had just around 100 killings with guns/rifles.
It is pretty hard to get hold of a gun here, unless your a hunter or has been a member of a shooting club for a minimum of 2 years. If less than 2 years the club holds onto your gun for you.

But in the US? You already have a buttload of guns around and many of them are in possession of criminals. So giving rightous, law abiding citizens the ability to carry a gun for protection seems like a good idea. And as others have mentioned, gun killings in the US are hardly ever done using guns aquired legally.

I honestly dont know. There are positive and negative sides to gun control and also the other way around.

---

I think there are bigger problems and other reasons for criminallity in the US that are more important to take a look at, other than guns.


I may be rambling, I hope some of you understand where im comming from with this.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


From that link... "A gun owner, for example, may not realize that an heir who is a legal medical marijuana user may be prohibited from owning a firearm under federal law."

Ehhh? So if someone uses marijuana for medical purposes they are at higher risk in shooting someone if they own a gun?? I would like to see their evidence backing up that claim if there is any! This just goes to show you how batsh!t crazy our government really is. A bunch of crazies calling everyone else crazy.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
there is only one proven way to defeat evil here:

youtu.be...




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

That is another Obama lie. Felons can't own guns even using that 'corporate loophole' which most people call gun trusts.

Felons DON'T USE that method.They buy them out of a trunk. They don't go all that trouble.

And the biggest reason this is bullsnip.

Not a single shooting that went national used gun trusts.


If truth is poison, like the MSM says it is, then you must be one sick puppy.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join