Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[esmith]

As most of you know I am what some here on Religious Forums consider a right wing gun-nut (your term not mine). So I have some serious questions and my own response to them that I would be open to a discussion about. I just watched a talking head, Chuck Todd, on NBC. A few points were brought forward by his guest and he, Todd, did some song and dance around a couple of points. Let's look at a couple of issues.

1. It seems that there are those that think you have to be over the age of 18 or over to have in their possession a handgun or to purchase one. This is False and True.
Federal Law: You must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer. However, as a private citizen I can sell a handgun to anyone 18 and over in Idaho. In addition, a person 18 and over may carry a concealed weapon in Idaho outside the border limits of cities and/or towns . Therefore, the 18 year restriction is a State by State issue. All media networks cable and over-the-air have promulgated false information.

2. Raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a AR-15 style weapon.
My contention is that this is a knee jerk reaction.
What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?
Do they not realize that a person 17 years of age can join the US military and be issued a automatic weapon. What do they want to do, pass a law that you must be 21 years old to join the military?
Again this is a knee jerk reaction by those that have not set down a looked at the issue.

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of. Of course he mentioned internet sales, but does he not realize that to purchase a firearm over the internet that the transaction must go through a FFL dealer on both ends of the sale. That is unless the sale is by a private party to a resident of the same state. If a private party sells a firearm to a person from another state they have violated Federal law without going through a person with a FFL at both ends of the transaction.
Note: I would like to see "gun show" sales go through a FFL dealer. But I do not want to require this of sales between private parties. See ZIdaho.com for an example of sales between private parties that I do not think should be required to go through a FFL dealer.
Also what do they mean by "expanded background" checks? Mr Todd kept mentioning adding something (he never specified what he meant) to the background checks. Well he did say if a person is expelled from school it should go on his record. So you can get expelled from school for many "minor" incidents. Say like causing a traffic jam in the school hallways for one.

Now those are only three items. If you are willing to have a intelligent conversation on what additional firearm laws you would like to see enacted I and others would probably be willing to do so. The key word is "Intelligent". Of course I can't stop person from posting, but I will only answer to "Intelligent" statements or ideas. (My post, my definition of intelligent)

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish you well in this thread.

 

[Quetzal]

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of.

This is a good point and one I don't know much about either. I will admit, I do not know much about what certain states ask for outside of my own. Would you be in favor of a federal mandate that would create checks across the board? (Whatever that means.) I guess my main question is do you think a uniform approach across all states would be more helpful than what we have now?

 

[tytlyf]

As most of you know I am what some here on Religious Forums consider a right wing gun-nut (your term not mine).

You are obsessed with weapons. I don't see the issue. No one is coming to confiscate your guns. I wouldn't be so paranoid all the time.

The NRA isn't your friend.

 

[sayak83]

As most of you know I am what some here on Religious Forums consider a right wing gun-nut (your term not mine). So I have some serious questions and my own response to them that I would be open to a discussion about. I just watched a talking head, Chuck Todd, on NBC. A few points were brought forward by his guest and he, Todd, did some song and dance around a couple of points. Let's look at a couple of issues.

1. It seems that there are those that think you have to be over the age of 18 or over to have in their possession a handgun or to purchase one. This is False and True.
Federal Law: You must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer. However, as a private citizen I can sell a handgun to anyone 18 and over in Idaho. In addition, a person 18 and over may carry a concealed weapon in Idaho outside the border limits of cities and/or towns . Therefore, the 18 year restriction is a State by State issue. All media networks cable and over-the-air have promulgated false information.

2. Raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a AR-15 style weapon.
My contention is that this is a knee jerk reaction.
What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?
Do they not realize that a person 17 years of age can join the US military and be issued a automatic weapon. What do they want to do, pass a law that you must be 21 years old to join the military?
Again this is a knee jerk reaction by those that have not set down a looked at the issue.

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of. Of course he mentioned internet sales, but does he not realize that to purchase a firearm over the internet that the transaction must go through a FFL dealer on both ends of the sale. That is unless the sale is by a private party to a resident of the same state. If a private party sells a firearm to a person from another state they have violated Federal law without going through a person with a FFL at both ends of the transaction.
Note: I would like to see "gun show" sales go through a FFL dealer. But I do not want to require this of sales between private parties. See ZIdaho.com for an example of sales between private parties that I do not think should be required to go through a FFL dealer.
Also what do they mean by "expanded background" checks? Mr Todd kept mentioning adding something (he never specified what he meant) to the background checks. Well he did say if a person is expelled from school it should go on his record. So you can get expelled from school for many "minor" incidents. Say like causing a traffic jam in the school hallways for one.

Now those are only three items. If you are willing to have a intelligent conversation on what additional firearm laws you would like to see enacted I and others would probably be willing to do so. The key word is "Intelligent". Of course I can't stop person from posting, but I will only answer to "Intelligent" statements or ideas. (My post, my definition of intelligent)

I have several propositions.
1) A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements only after he has held a job or is gainfully self-employed for at least one year. Otherwise, he/she would need a recommendation from the local citizen council (or whatever of that kind exists in US) to buy a gun. This, I will call "a responsible independent citizen requirement". The gun license has to be renewed every two years, where in addition to refresher gun training, a review of the responsible citizen requirement will be made. A centralized DMV like office should be responsible for giving, revoking or renewing the gun permits, or permits to sale the gun to a third party.

2) While giving gun permits, this DMV like office will review the person's law history and mental health records. Every new permit or renewal will require a psychiatric evaluation. Psychiatrists would be made available for appointment by the said office to applicants at a discounted price.

3) Revocation of license will require the person to submit his gun to the Gun Licensing Office within seven days. The person can choose to rent a locker where the gun will be kept until he gets his license back, or choose to sell it to a licensed third party.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have several propositions.
1) A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements only after he has held a job or is gainfully self-employed for at least one year. Otherwise, he/she would need a recommendation from the local citizen council (or whatever of that kind exists in US) to buy a gun. This, I will call "a responsible independent citizen requirement". The gun license has to be renewed every two years, where in addition to refresher gun training, a review of the responsible citizen requirement will be made. A centralized DMV like office should be responsible for giving, revoking or renewing the gun permits, or permits to sale the gun to a third party.

2) While giving gun permits, this DMV like office will review the person's law history and mental health records. Every new permit or renewal will require a psychiatric evaluation. Psychiatrists would be made available for appointment by the said office to applicants at a discounted price.

3) Revocation of license will require the person to submit his gun to the Gun Licensing Office within seven days. The person can choose to rent a locker where the gun will be kept until he gets his license back, or choose to sell it to a licensed third party.

I see government jobs galore...unless, what say I wanted to regulate gun approvals by limiting the number of offices that handle these things. Say, one per every million in population.

 

[sayak83]

I see government jobs galore...unless, what say I wanted to regulate gun approvals by limiting the number of offices that handle these things. Say, one per every million in population.

Jobs are good. Less expensive than gun deaths and putting people in prison for gun violence.
I said DMV for a reason. Every place should have a gun office within 15 minute driving distance. Just like schools. Otherwise it will be a deprivation of second amendment rights where every citizen capable enough to be part of "the well regulated militia" could choose to be armed , just like education rights. SC will take care that this is the case.

 

[Valjean]

The brain of an 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old, and neither are fully mature.
17 year olds are just the thing for military service, but the qualities that make them good soldiers are not the qualities that make them good social players.

Background checks are problematic. What's significant, and who's reporting to whom?
Impulsiveness and identity exploration are normal in adolescents. If all potentially problematic behavior were reported, half the population would be on a watch list.

There's also the problem that if such a reporting system were instituted, people in need would avoid any contact with counseling services. If seeing a psychologist or school counselor could bar you from universities, the military, government jobs, and many other white collar professions, who would ever see a counselor?

 

[Revoltingest]

The brain of an 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old, and neither are fully mature.

I don't see a significant difference until they approach 30 years of age.
They have more self control & awareness by then.

 

[esmith]

This is a good point and one I don't know much about either. I will admit, I do not know much about what certain states ask for outside of my own. Would you be in favor of a federal mandate that would create checks across the board? (Whatever that means.) I guess my main question is do you think a uniform approach across all states would be more helpful than what we have now?

Data from the States should be sent to the NCIS; this is a Nation wide data base. However, as in my state I do not need a background check every time I purchase a firearm from a dealer because my concealed carry permit is substituted for a online query.

 

[bobhikes]

As most of you know I am what some here on Religious Forums consider a right wing gun-nut (your term not mine). So I have some serious questions and my own response to them that I would be open to a discussion about. I just watched a talking head, Chuck Todd, on NBC. A few points were brought forward by his guest and he, Todd, did some song and dance around a couple of points. Let's look at a couple of issues.

1. It seems that there are those that think you have to be over the age of 18 or over to have in their possession a handgun or to purchase one. This is False and True.
Federal Law: You must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer. However, as a private citizen I can sell a handgun to anyone 18 and over in Idaho. In addition, a person 18 and over may carry a concealed weapon in Idaho outside the border limits of cities and/or towns . Therefore, the 18 year restriction is a State by State issue. All media networks cable and over-the-air have promulgated false information.

2. Raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a AR-15 style weapon.
My contention is that this is a knee jerk reaction.
What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?
Do they not realize that a person 17 years of age can join the US military and be issued a automatic weapon. What do they want to do, pass a law that you must be 21 years old to join the military?
Again this is a knee jerk reaction by those that have not set down a looked at the issue.

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of. Of course he mentioned internet sales, but does he not realize that to purchase a firearm over the internet that the transaction must go through a FFL dealer on both ends of the sale. That is unless the sale is by a private party to a resident of the same state. If a private party sells a firearm to a person from another state they have violated Federal law without going through a person with a FFL at both ends of the transaction.
Note: I would like to see "gun show" sales go through a FFL dealer. But I do not want to require this of sales between private parties. See ZIdaho.com for an example of sales between private parties that I do not think should be required to go through a FFL dealer.
Also what do they mean by "expanded background" checks? Mr Todd kept mentioning adding something (he never specified what he meant) to the background checks. Well he did say if a person is expelled from school it should go on his record. So you can get expelled from school for many "minor" incidents. Say like causing a traffic jam in the school hallways for one.

Now those are only three items. If you are willing to have a intelligent conversation on what additional firearm laws you would like to see enacted I and others would probably be willing to do so. The key word is "Intelligent". Of course I can't stop person from posting, but I will only answer to "Intelligent" statements or ideas. (My post, my definition of intelligent)

Number 1) As a hunter since I was twelve I understand that although I can't purchase a firearm under 18 you still can own one purchased for you by an adult. I however support the increase in purchasing age to 21 because that separates you a few more years from school where hopefully you lost any anger you had against it.

Number 2) As a hunter, fisherman, target shooter there has never been a need for an AR-15 it is an Adult toy and while I don't believe you should stop Adults from getting Adult toys children should not have them. If young adults are to young to be reliable smokers or drinkers they definitely should not have an AR-15.

Number 3) I have no problem with background checks as I never needed to purchase a gun immediately and would like them preformed on all gun sales including private as to what changes need to be made to background checks that should be discussed in open debate.

My number 4)Would be limitations on people with mental heath problems and better help and identification of mental heath problems and how they lead to mass murders. The dickey amendment has made it so the CDC can not use government funds to investigate any thing that can possibly lead to gun regulations and this is unacceptable. The CDC should examine all possible ways of preventing gun violence.

My number 5) Would be to ban known violent felons from ever owning a gun, there are actually 4 states that have methods for known felons to be able to petition and get gun licenses.

 

[esmith]

I have several propositions.
1) A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements only after he has held a job or is gainfully self-employed for at least one year. Otherwise, he/she would need a recommendation from the local citizen council (or whatever of that kind exists in US) to buy a gun. This, I will call "a responsible independent citizen requirement". The gun license has to be renewed every two years, where in addition to refresher gun training, a review of the responsible citizen requirement will be made. A centralized DMV like office should be responsible for giving, revoking or renewing the gun permits, or permits to sale the gun to a third party.

1. Not sure what you mean by the statement "A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements" Please clarify
2. What does being employed have to do with a requirement to own a firearm? Please explain
3. We do not have local citizen councils in the US other than our governmental agency. If we did what qualifications would the persons selected for this "council" have? Be specific.
4. Some States have a requirement to have a license to purchase a firearm others don't. I would leave it up to the States to make that determination.
5. If you want a refresher gun training period every two years do you also want a driving refresher training program every two years. More people are killed in automobile accidents that with firearms.
6. What do you consider "responsible citizen requirement" to entail?
7. DMV style office for giving, revoking, or renewing permits. See #4

2) While giving gun permits, this DMV like office will review the person's law history and mental health records. Every new permit or renewal will require a psychiatric evaluation. Psychiatrists would be made available for appointment by the said office to applicants at a discounted price.

1. You do realize that there are certain restrictions on who may purchase or have in their possession a firearm. It is the current law in all States.
2. One must be adjudicated as mental ill in order to have a Constitutional right revoked. Until the Constitution is amended this right can not be taken away. Therefore one must exhibit a condition of mental illness and brought before a judge, with both parties represented in order for this to happen.

3) Revocation of license will require the person to submit his gun to the Gun Licensing Office within seven days. The person can choose to rent a locker where the gun will be kept until he gets his license back, or choose to sell it to a licensed third party.

That is covered under current Federal law concerning who may or may not purchase or have possession of a firearm.

 

[Quetzal]

Data from the States should be sent to the NCIS; this is a Nation wide data base. However, as in my state I do not need a background check every time I purchase a firearm from a dealer because my concealed carry permit is substituted for a online query.

When you got your concealed, they probably ran your background then, right? It would makes sense to not do it again until you need to renew.

 

[Skwim]

Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

I think it's amusing how you imply that all your other discussions have not been honest.

.

​

 

[esmith]

The brain of an 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old, and neither are fully mature.
17 year olds are just the thing for military service, but the qualities that make them good soldiers are not the qualities that make them good social players.

I have worked and know 17-18 year old persons who are more mature than someone who is 25 years old.
Where did you obtain the facts that the brain of a 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old?

Background checks are problematic. What's significant, and who's reporting to whom?
Impulsiveness and identity exploration are normal in adolescents. If all potentially problematic behavior were reported, half the population would be on a watch list.

A background data base should contain all data that would invalidate a person from possessing a firearm under current laws.

There's also the problem that if such a reporting system were instituted, people in need would avoid any contact with counseling services. If seeing a psychologist or school counselor could bar you from universities, the military, government jobs, and many other white collar professions, who would ever see a counselor?

We still require a court of law to determine who may posses a firearm. Would you change that to not requiring a court of law, remember under our current Constitution we have the "right" to own a firearm, unless a court of law removes that right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The brain of an 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old, and neither are fully mature.
17 year olds are just the thing for military service, but the qualities that make them good soldiers are not the qualities that make them good social players.

Background checks are problematic. What's significant, and who's reporting to whom?
Impulsiveness and identity exploration are normal in adolescents. If all potentially problematic behavior were reported, half the population would be on a watch list.

There's also the problem that if such a reporting system were instituted, people in need would avoid any contact with counseling services. If seeing a psychologist or school counselor could bar you from universities, the military, government jobs, and many other white collar professions, who would ever see a counselor?

I think it's time for an age requirement. This generation has proven itself not responsible enough as people in the past.

I feel bad for rural areas where it's not uncommon for young adults to handle firearms. Maybe a provision made that younger persons may handle or fire arms while in the company of an adult would suffice as well.

 

[esmith]

Number 1) As a hunter since I was twelve I understand that although I can't purchase a firearm under 18 you still can own one purchased for you by an adult. I however support the increase in purchasing age to 21 because that separates you a few more years from school where hopefully you lost any anger you had against it.

It depends on what State you live in. Also if an adult purchases a firearm for you they have broken a Federal Law, unless the buyer intends to give it to you as a gift.

Number 2) As a hunter, fisherman, target shooter there has never been a need for an AR-15 it is an Adult toy and while I don't believe you should stop Adults from getting Adult toys children should not have them. If young adults are to young to be reliable smokers or drinkers they definitely should not have an AR-15.

That is an opinion. Also I know many non-adults that compete in competitions with a AR-15 style weapon. A AR-15 is nothing more that a semi-automatic rifle. Do you believe that anyone under the age of 21 should not own a semi-automatic rifle? If young adults are to young to be reliable smoker or drinkers, in your opinion, should they not be allowed to join the military?

Number 3) I have no problem with background checks as I never needed to purchase a gun immediately and would like them preformed on all gun sales including private as to what changes need to be made to background checks that should be discussed in open debate.

What changes, other than all sales must go through a background check, do you want background checks to include? You do realize don't you that anyone can walk into a store and purchase a firearm the same day. That is unless a State as a waiting period (do any have one). I can purchase a firearm without going through a online query for a background check, do you have a problem with that, and no I am not a LEO, a LEO must submit to a online background check to purchase a firearm unless they (in my State) have a CCW.

My number 4)Would be limitations on people with mental heath problems and better help and identification of mental heath problems and how they lead to mass murders. The dickey amendment has made it so the CDC can not use government funds to investigate any thing that can possibly lead to gun regulations and this is unacceptable. The CDC should examine all possible ways of preventing gun violence.
How would you determine a person has a mental health problem. Remember under our current Constitution you must go before a court of law to have ones rights removed.

My number 5) Would be to ban known violent felons from ever owning a gun, there are actually 4 states that have methods for known felons to be able to petition and get gun licenses.

Which 4 states are that and what are the conditions that must be met for that to occur?

 

[Nous]

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of.

As far as I know offhand, this is correct:

What is a Brady background check?

When an individual goes to a retailer to purchase a firearm, the retailer contacts the FBI to run a background check on each gun purchaser. The FBI checks the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to see if they are a prohibited purchaser. Prohibited purchasers include felons, fugitives, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. Simply put, the effective Brady Law prevents guns from getting into the hands of dangerous people.

Since taking effect in 1994, the law has blocked more than 3 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers including felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous individuals.

The bottom line: background checks work. But today, experts estimate that 1 out of 5 gun sales occur in “no questions asked” transactions that often take place over the Internet or at gun shows where, in most states, background checks are not required. This dangerous loophole puts thousands and thousands of guns in the hands of dangerous people like domestic abusers, felons and the dangerously mentally ill.

What is being done about the gun sales not subjected to Brady background checks?

Unchecked sales occur at gun shows across the country and over the Internet every single day. Current legislation (H.R. 3411) pending in the U.S. House of Representatives would solve this problem by expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales including sales made over the Internet and at gun shows The Brady Campaign isn’t waiting for Congress to act. Since 2013, six states have passed new laws expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales. This is tremendous momentum ultimately Congress won’t be able to ignore the will of the people as more and more states act.

This is unprecedented momentum across the country. Most recently, Oregon and Washington expanded Brady background checks to all gun sales, and in 2016 both Nevada and Maine citizens will cast their votes to expand Brady background checks. After Maine and Nevada, there are 14 more states that where we can pass ballot initiatives to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales.​

Background Checks | Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[esmith]

When you got your concealed, they probably ran your background then, right? It would makes sense to not do it again until you need to renew.

Yes and the background check was not just the standard background check for purchasing a firearm. My permit is good for 4 years; however in the State of Idaho I do not need a permit to carry concealed. But I will renew it since it is an enhanced and other states will recognize and accept it for carry in their State.

 

[esmith]

I think it's time for an age requirement. This generation has proven itself not responsible enough as people in the past.

I feel bad for rural areas where it's not uncommon for young adults to handle firearms. Maybe a provision made that younger persons may handle or fire arms while in the company of an adult would suffice as well.

Sorry, the idea doesn't fly. When you are working in "rural" areas you are usually on your own because the "adult" is working elsewhere.
I believe the age requirement is a knee-jerk response to say "see we did something" that will not solve the current problem.