Terror Loophole vs. 2nd Amendment :: The next move in disarming America?

Originally posted by neo96




Plenty

some people like me have problems with the invasion of privacy,civil liberties, and being guilty until proven innocent.

Don't think a person has to 'register' their private property to anyone see:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Who said you were guilty of anything ? I am talking about registration
You need to show proper documentation of who you are when buying a house or when buying a vehicle when you file your taxes

Do you not register a car how is that not an invasion of privacy or do you not because some people don't so there fore no body should have to ?

What happens when work wants a background check and drug test ?
Or is it only ok to give up your rights of privacy and civil liberties when they suit your needs?

reply to post by freedomSlave


Yeah yeah

Papers please,Gestapo style.

The world's been there done that,wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Originally posted by neo96


Actually the reverse is true gun control laws is why there is a black market people not figured out when people want something they usually get it?

Nope wrong . If there were restrictions as to who could buy an gun at a gun show or online not to hard to make up an alias is it ?How much harder would it be for a criminal in Canada to get a fire arm smuggled from in the states if said smuggler had the firearms registered in his name . Think about it


If guns were being sold to law biding citizens only where would the criminals get their gun? grow them in a field in Columbia or have the cia supply the criminals with guns ?


Do you really expect to live in a lawless world where everything is legal no need for law enforcement vigilantes will take care of everything . This isn't 1791 anymore it's 2013 America is completely out of step with the rest of the western world . I realize the majority here on ats are american share the same logic as you when it comes to this debate from what I have seen from the international people on this site and in the real world the numbers are quite the opposite.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Yeah yeah

Papers please,Gestapo style.

The world's been there done that,wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

where when?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

So tired of that strawman

Never fails someone always wants to bring a nuke or tank to a gun fight.

you are right with this how many times people bring up bringing a gun to a fist fight . so whats your point with that? only ok when people like you do it .

Originally posted by benrl
The only problem with that logic is who decides what a terrorist suspect is.

Look at the history of it, with cases like veterans and children being on no fly list etc.

Exclusion of people who have yet to commit a crime based solely on suspicion is UN-American bull.

I agree with you in part - except deciding who/what is a terrorist suspect isn't the ONLY problem.

IMO the REAL problem is what you've alluded to in your last sentence - these people are merely "suspects".
Supposedly our rule of law requires much more than just suspicion, and being placed on a "watch list" smacks of the bill-of-attainder of old - punishment without benefit of a trial. Never mind the no-fly list which isn't even based on any reasonable suspicion, much less any probable cause.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa


I absolutely agree, and this was why I posted this. It isn't so much about whether the government would attempt to disarm anyone. It's more about the possibility that this would allow them to if they truly wanted too. This would open the door for some president years from now to exploit this loophole in the future. Policy now -will - effect the future.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings



Why do they need the make, model, and serial number of a firearm and my address to run a background check on me?

If they wanted to check my background they need my name and SSN.

They only need the other information to create a national registry. I agree with background checks for all weapon purchases, I disagree 100% with a registry.

reply to post by freedomSlave

What is wrong with having to register a firearm what is wrong going threw background checks ? If you are a law biding citizen what is the big deal unless there is something to hide.

Background checks are already federal law.

Adding more guns and such a reckless sales of firearms and ownership how does that help anything. How does more make less ?

You should read "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott

Okay, my sincere apologies for not having gotten back to this thread sooner. I had never meant to leave such an open ended statement as my first post here, for as long as this turned out to be. Then again...I was kinda hoping someone would take the moment required to find what a *REAL* loophole looks like, compared to an imagined one like the "Gun Show Loophole".

Let me explain now, what I meant in my first post.

Every firearm transfer, purchase or change of ownership in the United States, which takes place between a licensed gun broker or dealer, MUST follow the regulations for a NICS Background check being performed. If exceptions exist, I don't know of any. This background check comes, ultimately, through the F.B.I. and is most commonly performed by telephone at point of sale. The outcome can result in one of three returns for action to be taken:

#1. Approved: The sale proceeds, and barring state regulation, the firearm is handed to the customer in a cash & carry fashion to go out the door with. This is how it does work in Missouri and many other states in the U.S..

#2. Denied: You've been naughty and their list caught ya! Technically, you've probably committed a federal crime in just getting to this point, as attempt to purchase while knowingly excluded IS a crime in itself. Rarely prosecuted or pursued, it just results in a denial of sale and invitation to leave that section of the store in most cases. In *ALL* cases, the sale of the firearm must stop at this point.

#3: Delayed: Ahh.. Now we have what is an Honest to God LOOPHOLE. It's a loophole they created and this result means that something in the computer check hung up. It may be an unclear result from something (as I personally have happen every time I buy a gun) or it could be a true felony or dis-qualifier that is, for any number of reasons, not being clearly read by the computer to fit one of the above two conditions.

Delayed starts a whole new process, by federal law. When this result come in, they begin a manual hand check of your record (in theory) that they have 3 business days to complete. Not Calendar days, but business days. (This is notable when you've at a gun show on a Friday and it delays ...been there and done that )

IF...they DO NOT complete that hand check within the proscribed 3 business days, the law defaults to a position of allowing the sale. Yes, you read that correctly. It DEFAULTS TO A SALE position. So, Usama Bin Laden himself could have been here to buy a truckload of AR-15 rifles....and if he timed it just right to get a busy time ..and if the computer went tilt on one detail anywhere in the process? He'd have been federally cleared to get his truckload of guns.

The way the law reads, it is up to the private business owner's discretion after the 3rd business day and/or any additional state regulation (which many do not have...like mine) as to whether the sale should be completed. In the real world? If the business doesn't want to end up in court over it, they'd better have a VERY good reason to hold the sale on subjective opinion after the Feds "clear" the sale by lack of result at that point.


So.... That is what a *REAL* Loophole looks like. It's written into the law for a decent reason, but like most things Government touches? It's implemented in a horrible way that does more harm than good, I have NO doubt. The reasoning is simply that playing with background checking cannot become a tool to deny purchase rights to people....which could happen without some deadline or means to handle a computer glitch in the process. However, as I believe I've shown by explanation here ...the outcome has the very real potential to cause far more harm, by it's Government and legal origin as LAW, than any "loophole" allowing the sale of private property between private citizens ever can.

Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide

^ ^ ^ The above is where you will find the official pages to explain what I just did. It's dated 2005, but as the nation and, now world, has seen? Regulation in this area doesn't change without literally moving heaven and earth with Congressional action ..and plenty more. Page 218 is where the specific section relation to this begins.

As Government documents go? It's very easy and 'idiot proof' reading for this area of firearms regulation and law.

Hope that helps...and I wish others could occasionally look something up.... (sigh) Just a pet peeve... never mind me.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
There is ONE thing I would call a loophole and I challenge anyone to go find it. It's not hard and it's no trick question. In anything more than a cursory reading of ATF regulations regarding how the current background check functions? It stands out like a sore thumb. It's got absolutely nothing to do with private party sales or gun shows. They created the biggest loophole all by themselves ....and might explain why they have never mentioned it. The media hasn't either, that I've heard said.

It's the fact no one on either side at ATS has, which deeply disturbs me. Outside of that one they wrote right into the law from the start? Well... One man's loophole is another man's right to trade freely with another citizen ...which is what we enjoy here in the Midwest, regardless of how other states may do it.

They can close their own loophole and explain to people how and why they deliberately made it before making up new ones that aren't even what they present them to be.

(Really... NOT a trick question..... shouldn't take more than a few minutes reading ..and it really does have the most impact, finding it one's own self... It's kind of a "You HAVE to be KIDDING me" moment, given how these idiots talk for the TV on a regular basis)

The biggest gun control loophole the Gov't will use is actually…a psychiatrist.

If one deems you mentally unstable for whatever reason, you’re screwed. I can’t even imagine the cost of proving otherwise through the medical and court system.


Am I right?

reply to post by TDawgRex


Oh, I believe you are correct in how the new system and new changes are shaping up. Yes. They have gone to backbreaking effort for defining crime as it might pertain to being registered into the system. As we've seen, that even includes charging children with "good faith" incidents at home or school with felony levels ....with the odd coincidence that they then meet the threshold for DNA indexing and full, proper registration into state and national database they would never otherwise be. (The kid firing a BB gun a couple weeks ago ...with a felony. The science experiment ...personal or not... recently profiled here as another).

Yet, no kidding.... Even all that doesn't hold a candle to how our own thoughts, dreams, aspirations and hopes can be warped and turned against us. Even the sincere hope for change ...our President ran upon, twice, can now be warped to say we're dangerously Anti-Government, ergo a threat, ergo no guns for you! ...if that hope for change comes from the wrong political direction.

It's feeling downright Soviet around here at times, these days. Yes, indeed. I wonder when the Psychiatric Internment for our own good and re-education of proper political outlook may begin? Until then. Yes, you're 100% right. They are using our own thoughts against us ...as often as they are catching legitimate threat from mental illness, which the system was MEANT to catch.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't want this to come off the wrong way, and I truly don't mean this in any derogatory way, but did you even read the OP fully?

You are talking about the gun show loop holes. This post has nothing to do with that...

This post is about congress enacting a way of denying people gun rights by placing them on a terror watch list or no fly list. Nothing to do with gun show loopholes or gun sales.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


You should read "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott

edit on 3-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

less guns here less guns in uk less crime.. huh thats so odd isn't it
ever list I look at america is number 2 or 1 spot when it come to crime rate usually battling it out with south africa for that title

How about reading more jobs less crime. I really don't care for fictional reads personally. Quality of life in america is no better than some third world country now days .

still kinda laughing at more guns less crime . do you not under stand statistics , how probability works ? adding more to the equation doesn't magically bring a number down . Amazing how twisted the logic is on this

reply to post by xmaddness


I think what Wrabbit is pointing out is that with the gun control crowd, there is but one goal, with many tactics that can be used.

A terror watch list error or a psyhic eval by someone who doesn't agree with your POV could lead to a law abiding citizen not being able to exercise his or her 2d Amendment right.

reply to post by freedomSlave


How come towns in the US that REQUIRE firearms in every home have FAR less crime than others? Think about it. There are statistics for that as well.

Chicago, Detroit and NewYork City, amongst others, have some of the strictist gun control laws but they all top out at the most gun related crime stats.

reply to post by xmaddness

Originally posted by xmaddness
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I don't want this to come off the wrong way, and I truly don't mean this in any derogatory way, but did you even read the OP fully?

You are talking about the gun show loop holes. This post has nothing to do with that...

This post is about congress enacting a way of denying people gun rights by placing them on a terror watch list or no fly list. Nothing to do with gun show loopholes or gun sales.

It's not at all.....and if you read what I said, fully, you would see I'm referring to the Gun Show Loophole as just a casually referenced comparison for context. I've written far far more than this on that ONE issue alone. Sorry, it's just the most casual point of context.

The issue was, however, loopholes ...and I made a post, top on the thread, pointing out that the largest currently existing one is, in fact, hardwired into the law itself. Nothing related to Gun Shows, except, again, as context for comparison.

As it happens, a member of ATS Staff privately noted that the way I introduced the issue in my first post was ...uncool. That Moderator was correct, as well. Without follow-up, it was, in fact, wrong to start and then walk away from a hanging topic on how loopholes are well defined by the very details of the Federal Law itself...then not return to elaborate and explain that statement.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Are you comparing mega cities to cities with a million or less ?

town mentality is a big difference then kids in the inner city of multi million people

reply to post by freedomSlave


You’re correct. I’ve always considered a town to be 50,000 or less, a village to be in the 5000 or less range.

There really is a difference in the cultural mindset between the size of cities/towns/villages.

Usually, the smaller the size, the more independent the people think but are dependent upon one another and the bigger the size, the more self centered they are.

Understand, that is based upon my own observations and it is using a broad brush approach which I usually disdain. But that is how I see it.