Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[esmith]

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

Each State can enact their own laws. I see no need to make it a "national" requirement. You do realize that internet sales must go through a FFL holder unless it is a person to person sale. I agree that sales at "gun shows" should require a background check through a FFL holder. But that is as far as I will go.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I was raised on a farm. Truth be told I was never allowed to carry a firearm alone until I was sixteen. That was when I got my hunting license.

 

[sun rise]

Therefore, the 18 year restriction is a State by State issue.

A federal law could be passed superseding state laws. And there are many things that 18 year old's can't do by law. Owning a weapon which really is intended to destroy soldiers in combat is not needed. About the power of the AR-15 Mangled tissue and softball-sized exit wounds: Why AR-15 injuries are so devastating

What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?

Maturity specifically the brain is more mature at 21 although 25 is the typical final brain maturity age.

what do they mean by "expanded background" checks?

I think I answered your question the last time you raised this 'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN Universal background check - Wikipedia Universal Background Checks | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and many many more sites have this defined very well indeed.

 

[sun rise]

Also

As a combat vet I can safely say an AR-15 shouldn't get in civilian hands

and
Combat veterans push for gun reform: ‘This isn’t right’

He said he’s a combat veteran, a gun owner and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. And he’s ready for gun reform.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/lett...-say-an-ar-15-shouldnt-get-in-civilian-hands/

 

[esmith]

I was raised on a farm. Truth be told I was never allowed to carry a firearm alone until I was sixteen. That was when I got my hunting license.

I was hunting when I was 10 years old and purchased my first firearm, bolt action .410, when I was around 10. I was usually accompanied by my Father until I was around 13 or 14. And no I did not need a hunting license until I was around 14.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was hunting when I was 10 years old and purchased my first firearm, bolt action .410, when I was around 10. I was usually accompanied by my Father until I was around 13 or 14. And no I did not need a hunting license until I was around 14.

Normally I wouldn't argue with that. But like I said earlier this generation is proving itself not to be responsible like ours was.

Maybe go back to the old ways again someday but apparently I don't think it is like that now. This is one of the most screwed-up Generations I've ever seen.

 

[Nous]

Each State can enact their own laws. I see no need to make it a "national" requirement.

I wasn't addressing your beliefs or what you "see need for". I was providing information about what "expanded background checks" means.

 

[Fool]

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)

the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically address the term 'firearm'. it says the right to bear arms.

we regulate chemical weapons to an extent. we regulate nuclears weapons. we regulate biological weapons.

i have never understood the dramatic response of fire-arms owners.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I certainly think people should be allowed to own guns for hunting or self protection. But I wonder about these assault type weapons that can fire multiple rounds in a short time. No one hunts with this type weapon and they are not needed for self defense. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill as many people as possible in a short time. It seems like some better system is needed to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who only want to use them to kill others. What is the answer? I do not have an answer but surely we can come up with some solution that will preserve gun rights but do something about the use of these types of weapons for mass murder.

 

[esmith]

A federal law could be passed superseding state laws. And there are many things that 18 year old's can't do by law. Owning a weapon which really is intended to destroy soldiers in combat is not needed. About the power of the AR-15 Mangled tissue and softball-sized exit wounds: Why AR-15 injuries are so devastating

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201949054.html
Yes a Federal Law always supersedes Sate Law, but are they enforced? Obviously not all of them.
I don't disagree that a bullet from a .223 will cause massive wounds, but so will a .45ACP JHP and just about every other bullet. That is what they are for...to incapacitate or kill. So your point about the .223 is moot.

Maturity specifically the brain is more mature at 21 although 25 is the typical final brain maturity age.

Do you have data on this or is this an opinion?

I think I answered your question the last time you raised this 'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN Universal background check - Wikipedia Universal Background Checks | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and many many more sites have this defined very well indeed.

No, what I heard from Chuck Tood was that he wanted something else added to the background check. At least that is the understanding I had. Now he may have misspoke or I misunderstood him. I know what Universal Background Check mean to some, I just disagree with certain parts. That is my prerogative.
I am against in-state person to person requirements for conducting a background check. As I said before "gun shows" should have background checks.

 

[esmith]

I certainly think people should be allowed to own guns for hunting or self protection. But I wonder about these assault type weapons that can fire multiple rounds in a short time. No one hunts with this type weapon and they are not needed for self defense. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill as many people as possible in a short time. It seems like some better system is needed to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who only want to use them to kill others. What is the answer? I do not have an answer but surely we can come up with some solution that will preserve gun rights but do something about the use of these types of weapons for mass murder.

First, what is "your" definition of an "assault type" weapon.
Second, there are many shooting competitions that uses AR-15 style weapons.
Third, the comment "The only purpose of these weapons is to kill as many people as possible in a short time" is based on opinion. I may or may not own a AR-15 style weapon and I guarantee you it is not to "kill as many people as possible in a short time". Invalid point.

 

[bobhikes]

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.


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?


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.

Gun Hunting Ages(notice none above 16)

None specified* 6 Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington
6 years of age 1 Arkansas
9 years of age 1 Texas
10 years of age 3 Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee
11 years of age
2 Missouri, Oklahoma
12 years of age 8 California, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin
14 years of age 6 Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Wyoming
15 years of age 4 Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia
16 years of age 18 Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina. North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

Quoted from the Washington post

But a child's parent could. "If dad wants to give his son a rifle or a shotgun on his 13th or 14th birthday, he's pretty much free to do that in most states," Webster said.

It's also perfectly legal in many states for children to fire guns of all types at shooting ranges, like the one where the accidental shooting took place yesterday, so long as an adult or instructor is present.


Personally I don't believe anyone should own an AR-15 or some of the other guns they own but I will allow it and No I do not believe a person under 21 Needs to own an AR-15. In my opinion they should be allowed to join the Military which will teach them proper use of weapons but they are owned by the Military. I do not believe they should be forced to join the Military.

I never said anything about a waiting period, I want everyone to go through a background check.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how this affects the discussion, but I just came across this article, please note I have not vetted it:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/th...ed-to-preserve-slavery/#.WpMBGz9O7vg.facebook

If true how does that affect people's feelings on the Second Amendment? It gives me pause.

 

[esmith]

Gun Hunting Ages(notice none above 16)

None specified* 6 Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington
6 years of age 1 Arkansas
9 years of age 1 Texas
10 years of age 3 Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee
11 years of age
2 Missouri, Oklahoma
12 years of age 8 California, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin
14 years of age 6 Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Wyoming
15 years of age 4 Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia
16 years of age 18 Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina. North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

Quoted from the Washington post

But a child's parent could. "If dad wants to give his son a rifle or a shotgun on his 13th or 14th birthday, he's pretty much free to do that in most states," Webster said.

It's also perfectly legal in many states for children to fire guns of all types at shooting ranges, like the one where the accidental shooting took place yesterday, so long as an adult or instructor is present.


Personally I don't believe anyone should own an AR-15 or some of the other guns they own but I will allow it and No I do not believe a person under 21 Needs to own an AR-15. In my opinion they should be allowed to join the Military which will teach them proper use of weapons but they are owned by the Military. I do not believe they should be forced to join the Military.

I never said anything about a waiting period, I want everyone to go through a background check.

I think your data fro smartgunlaws.org which is really Browse Gun Laws by State | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in really not smart. Let's take a look at the incorrect map. It says that in Idaho one must be 18 to have in their possession a long gun. WRONG!!!!

Minor under age 18 who is on real property with the permission of the owner, licensee, or lessee of the property and who has the permission of a parent or legal guardian or the owner, licensee, or lessee to possess a firearm not otherwise in violation of the law, including while traveling to or from the location with an unloaded firearm; or Resident or non-resident hunters with a valid hunting license or other persons who are lawfully engaged in hunting, including while traveling to or from such hunting activities with an unloaded firearm.
In addition, no person under age 12 shall have in his or her possession any shotgun, rifle or other firearm while in the fields or forests or in any tent, camp, auto or any other vehicle in the state of Idaho, except that the holder of a youth small game license or youth hunter education graduate license, if accompanied by an adult licensed to hunt in Idaho, may possess a firearm for hunting while in the fields or forests.5

This site along with many others have a tendency to not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words I will have nothing to do with them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know how this affects the discussion, but I just came across this article, please note I have not vetted it:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/th...ed-to-preserve-slavery/#.WpMBGz9O7vg.facebook

If true how does that affect people's feelings on the Second Amendment? It gives me pause.

It's not true. But it pops up on RF regularly.
But even if it were, would Democrats find their party
de-legitimized by having supported slavery, & later Jim Crow?
Nah.
And the 13th Amendment didn't repeal the 2nd, which has foundations
both broader & older, eg, going back to English common law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not true. But it pops up on RF regularly.
But even if it were, would Democrats find their party
de-legitimized by having supported slavery, & later Jim Crow?
Nah.
And the 13th Amendment didn't repeal the 2nd, which has foundations
both broader & older, eg, going back to English common law.

Do you have anything to counter it? The claims did seem a bit extreme to me. And as I said, I did not vet the article. I am not standing by it demanding that it is true because it is on the internet.

ETA: No need. I have found more than one source that disagrees with this claim:

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery - Fact or Myth?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have anything to counter it? The claims did seem a bit extreme to me. And as I said, I did not vet the article. I am not standing by it demanding that it is true because it is on the internet.

It comes up so often that I should put it in a sticky.
Here's something really brief about the 2nd's origins....
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms
The Anti-Federalists didn't have much to say about slavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It comes up so often that I should put it in a sticky.
Here's something really brief about the 2nd's origins....
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms
The Anti-Federalists didn't have much to say about slavery.

And as you see I at least tried to undo the article that I originally linked by finding one that disagreed with those claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

And as you see I at least tried to undo the article that I originally linked by finding one that disagreed with those claims.

You are a gentleman & a scholar.
Well, that's too much....you're OK.

Btw, your link was better than mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a gentleman & a scholar.
Well, that's too much....you're OK.

Btw, your link was better than mine.

Do with it as you will. Personally I do not like to spread false news for either side. I am for gun rights, but I can see implementing some restrictions. Too many loons can simply buy a gun and do with it what they will. As we have seen far too often lately.