Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Appreciative

February 1, 2013

Appreciated your articles on the gun argument. I have been in the gun business for many years and can put some light on the subject....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 6:11 AM

In regards to your background check statement; Mental Health reporting was addressed via the new 23 executive orders. It is that reporting or rather, the lack there of, that makes background checks faulty in its current state.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-13 6:36 AM

Why have speed limits because some people will speed anyway...

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 6:45 AM

"Remember, to become a dictator all you have to do is disarm the civilian population."

And here we are again. Who exactly gets to decide on that dictator thing before before gun owners start murdering Americans?

"I have been to many gun shows over the years and never observed anyone in the show selling a gun on the QT inside the show or outside."

What's that supposed to mean? Certainly a gun dealer is aware of the gun show loophole. Because of this loophole, virtually ALL guns sold at a gun show are sold "on the QT", as in no background check.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-01-13 6:49 AM

"Remember, to become a dictator all you have to do is disarm the civilian population." - William Houser

*

...And, to maximize weapons/ammo sales during any-and-all elections, the NRA (automatically) launches their "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS & AMMO!!" sales-and-marketing efforts.

I think it's "fairly"-clear...to most people, by now...Priority 1 is the bottom-line, as-opposed-to any (actual) safety-and-security issues.

Well played.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Feb-01-13 6:57 AM

be careful what you say against guns on here, there are some pretty nasty pro gun people out there as I found out on another thread yesterday.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 7:12 AM

"Remember, to become a dictator all you have to do is disarm the civilian population."

Don't most dictators manipulate the election process? Remind me again who exactly was just trying to change electoral college rules, in such a way that had the changes been in effect before the election, the guy who lost by over 5 million popular votes, would have actually won the election?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 7:14 AM

CHayes Feb-01-13 6:45 AM****"Certainly a gun dealer is aware of the gun show loophole. Because of this loophole, virtually ALL guns sold at a gun show are sold "on the QT", as in no background check."

Hughes, "Gun dealers"(an FFL holder) may never sell a firearm without a background check. The only exception to this rule is if the firearm is from their own personal collection, and they have owned the firearm for more than one year. No matter whether they are in their shop or any gun show proper paperwork and a background check must, by law, be conducted.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 7:43 AM

Please don't play dumb Josh. Are you contending that this gun dealer, never in his life, witnessed a private sale at a gun show? Because that seems to be what he's telling us.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 7:59 AM

Why do you care if a gun dealer "witnessed" a private deal at a gun show? You stated, very clearly, that "virtually ALL guns sold at a gun show are sold "on the QT", as in no background check.".

I contested the fact that it is not legal for a dealer to do so.

I would fully support a law that made the private sale of fireams without background check illegal. Or the "gun show loophole" As you refer to it.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 8:05 AM

Josh, I too would support that. Frankly I DO think it should be illegal to 'avoid background checks'. That is in no way infringing on peoples' rights to legally own a firearm but ensuring that the measures to ensure mental health flagging/reporting remain intact.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 8:28 AM

" Why do you care if a gun dealer "witnessed" a private deal at a gun show?"

Because the gun dealer in question claimed he NEVER saw a gun transaction on the "QT" at a gun show, and as both you and I know all private sales at gun shows are exactly that, thanks to the gun show loophole. That would be the loophole the NRA refuses to discuss closing.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 9:17 AM

I think by default these transactions need not be preformed on the QT, They're legal.

The private transactions of handgun sales were ended years ago when it became mandatory for an FFL holder to administer a NICS check on both parties and the cost of which was paid usually(not necessarily) by the purchasing party.

To do this with long guns would be a little more time consuming and taxing on the instant check system as rifles are bought and traded on a more frequent basis. However this, in my opinion, is not a reason to forgo checks on private transactions.

But to my original point, "gun dealers" are not allowed to ever sell a gun at a gun show without a check performed. It just seems so many people misinterpret this "gun show loophole" and think that at gun shows guns are bought and sold by dealers all willy nilly without background checks.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 9:20 AM

CHayes, Pennsylvania is one of many states that require background checks at gun shows. There is no loophole here, so the author probably hasn't seen what would be an illegal transaction at a gun show. I know that none of the sources you use would ever mention that there are states in which the "gun show loophole" does not exist and that you live in one, but that's not an excuse for not knowing the laws in the state in which you live.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-01-13 9:46 AM

How about requiring a state issued license to buy or own a firearm? Of course a background check would be required by the state.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 10:09 AM

Phil, I think that's actually a good idea, as long as the 'fee' for doing so (if there is a fee at all) is minimal.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 10:11 AM

Phil,"How about requiring a state issued license to buy or own a firearm? Of course a background check would be required by the state."

I've wondered why a concealed carry permit can't be used for that purpose. it requires a background check and if you commit a crime or are determined, for any reason to be unfit to own a gun, it is revoked. So why is presenting it not just as good as a background check? The reason is, that the background check is a back door registration. The federal govenment knows that you have purchased a certain number of weapons by the number of background checks done. They know where you bought them and when. They are then all set for confiscation when the time comes.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-01-13 10:11 AM

It shouldn’t be much worse than obtaining a driver’s license.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-01-13 10:21 AM

"...And, to maximize weapons/ammo sales during any-and-all elections, the NRA (automatically) launches their "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS & AMMO!!" sales-and-marketing efforts."

Just like the leftists trotting out their 'WAR ON WOMEN' before every election.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-01-13 10:23 AM

Rick: "be careful what you say against guns on here, there are some pretty nasty pro gun people out there as I found out on another thread yesterday."

You gotta be kidding me Rick. All a person has to do is disagree with the left and they get all nasty. Grow up!!

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 10:31 AM

enigma Feb-01-13 10:11 AM***"I've wondered why a concealed carry permit can't be used for that purpose. it requires a background check and if you commit a crime or are determined, for any reason to be unfit to own a gun, it is revoked."

I would believe that lapses in time between when a crime was committed and until the CCP is revoked could be cause for concern. No different than this scenario. If a person fills out the paperwork for a firearm, that person may not leave the store premise before the transaction is entirely complete. If they do the original paperwork is void and new forms must be filled out.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 10:33 AM

@Enigma, the State also likes the 2$ it recieves from every PICS transaction, on top of the $3 surcharge on firearm purchases.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-01-13 10:36 AM

philunderwood Feb-01-13 10:11 AM****"It shouldn’t be much worse than obtaining a driver’s license."

As long as it isn't a requirement to vote, the left should be all for this.(sarc)

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 10:45 AM

If there are so many members of the NRA that support universal background checks, I think it would be great if they would communicate that to the NRAs main office, because clearly they don't agree with you.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-01-13 10:49 AM

IMO, the “they’re going to take away our guns,” smacks of paranoia at this point of time and in the foreseeable future.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 10:58 AM

Enigma - "The reason is, that the background check is a back door registration. The federal govenment knows that you have purchased a certain number of weapons by the number of background checks done. They know where you bought them and when. They are then all set for confiscation when the time comes."

I agreed with you right up until this point. I'm not saying that it's completely untrue, what you said, but at the same time, I also think that authorities SHOULD have the right to know how many firearms are in a household. In the event, however unlikely it may be, authorities have to approach or enter a premises, this allows them to be aware of what potential dangers they are facing.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web