What happens in Vegas,,,,

[redsox]

Ok Scooter. Well thought out response. You have a few good points. But let me ask you this one question. In your opinion, should there be any restrictions on the purchase or sale of any firearms at all?

[RIDE-RED 250r]

Ok Scooter. Well thought out response. You have a few good points. But let me ask you this one question. In your opinion, should there be any restrictions on the purchase or sale of any firearms at all?

If a person has no criminal record that would bar the ownership of firearms in general.... NO! M-60, Chicago Typewriters, M-16, anything. That is what 2a means. Any assertion that it does not is thoroughly false if not an outright lie.

Dan, Uncle Ben's words ring just as true today as ever, if not more so. The progressive elite politicians keep moving the line in the sand as pertaining to our God given, constitutionally protected (and very specifically so) rights. Funny how the same crowd that would grant illegals the right to vote would strip you of your weapons today if they could. But they can't do it all today, so they keep moving that line in the sand with all of the usual cliches, "if it saves just one life", and my personal favorite "common sense gun legislation". Common sense dictates that those who would use firearms to commit acts of evil are not controlled by "gun control" laws and regs ironically enough. If a person is bent on the taking of life (one of the highest of laws to break) then what sane person would think all these regulations would make the slightest bit of difference in their course??? I know it keeps coming around to these basic talking points, but it is no less the truth. These are the laws of nature.

[redsox]

Red, I was hoping you were going to chime in here as i know you feel strongly on the subject. I was also hoping for a response from scooter, as i'm genuinely interested in his thoughts. I don't suppose i'd come across a bigger gun advocate than you are Red, and even your statement lends itself to my position. And I agree. If I can legally own a gun, than I should be able to legally own (most) things. But the predicated upon contingent that you explain below is the whole point,,,

If a person has no criminal record that would bar the ownership of firearms in general....

How is a salesman (or the Government) to know if a person has a criminal record without checking? Also, I would add that i feel strongly about age restrictions. A 12 year old should not be able to walk into walmart and buy a gun. So, there must be some oversight. Right? What does that mean? That means that someone somewhere must ask some questions. And, it also means that it might someday be you that is asked. Also, it might someday be me. Now, if they ask the questions, and I answer, and i get denied,, THEN my rights have been violated. The violation, in my opinion, does not take place at the asking of the question, as Scooter contends. Furthermore, I would expect that those we put into positions of authority, who's salary we pay as Taxpayers, would perform their job diligently, and without bias. So, it stands to reason that an experienced agent, who knows what to look for, would become skilled at fettering out potential fraud by looking at some parameters. One of those parameters, it seems to me, would be multiple sales. So, if an agent sits down at his desk and says, "where do I start looking to find fraud?" And then pulls up a record of all the multiple sales among the thousands of sales in his area, and he follows up with a few questions to the purchaser, I'm completely fine with that. Its not an intrusion,,, its reasonable. And our (yes, i'm lumping us in together on the same side of the gun rights issue) resistance to that reasonable measure is a stance used by the leftist anti-gunners to paint us all as redneck zealots who will not take reasonable safety measures.

[RIDE-RED 250r]

I get you Dan. Age limits are fine, minors do not enjoy every right that adults do. I have no issue with a BG check, even though I feel that most criminals acquire their weapons by illegal means because they would not pass a BG check. And again, what does the average would-be killer care about abiding by firearms regs in the first place. But, a simple BG check I can tolerate and play along, I have nothing to hide. Restrictions on what I can own I have a serious problem with. What difference does it make if I have a Winchester model 70 338 Win Mag that is effective at distances of over 500 yards and will defeat ANY body armor or if I have a full auto M-16? It only takes one bullet, and you cannot call it back. It matters not how many more rounds are in the mag or what the rate of fire is.

Now in Scooter's case I think he has a legitimate gripe that he keeps getting delayed through no fault of his own. And I think he has a gripe when he inquires about the special ID he can obtain in the hopes that the delays will stop and they say it likely won't help. At it's best, this expends time and resources of ATF to put delays on people who legitimately warrant a delay. Suggesting he get a dealers license?? For what?? Now if they caught him selling those lowers, then that would be grounds for something. But wouldn't it have gone better if after he proved that he bought them for his own personal use, they said "no problem Sir, we just needed to follow up, have a nice day"... If I am recalling his accounting of it, they had no grounds to "suggest" he get a license. That borders on harassment in my book. I get it, they have a tough job, many criminals are clever and skirt the system for a long time before being caught, some never get caught. But lets not lose sight of the fact that once he was proven clear, that should have been the end of it. I'm a very pro-law enforcement guy, I know it's a tough job on the best of days. But I think some people in those positions just develop an overlying sense of cynicism dealing with folks in spite of something that may turn out to be nothing at all. IMHO it kind of sounds like Scooter may have gotten a little of that. If there is nothing wrong, there is nothing wrong, end of story.

Yeah, I'm definitely a pro-2a guy. Living here in the Peoples Republik of New York-istan under Andy Cuomo the wannabe Furor and his beloved (UN)Safe-act I am very up at arms (pun intended) when I start hearing talk about more gun legislation. That creep went so far as to exempt active and retired law enforcement from his Safe-act that he saddled us, his EMPLOYERS with! Again, I am not anti-LEO, but I do NOT believe in the establishment of two classes of citizen as he has done by this...the enforcers and the enforced. By that simple action, he insults every citizen by saying there is no such thing as a trustworthy citizen, and no such thing as a non-trustworthy LEO. Of course this is completely untrue and insulting to me. Good and bad exist in both groups, bad being the minority in both cases. But that is the law of the land here and it sickens me that this can happen in America.

Anyway, safety measures.. Again, I don't believe a simple BG check is a violation of rights. Gun legislation and regulation on the other hand, from the NFA all the way to today is dead wrong and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. You cannot punish the whole of society with the stripping of rights and freedom for the actions of a few.

[RIDE-RED 250r]

Oh, I need to share a bit more NY tyrannical agenda with you... A state legislator from downstate has sponsored a bill that would limit ammo sales to an individual to no more than twice the capacity of the firearm he/she owns every 90 days. They are still pushing for this... And looking at targeting "types" of ammo, pistol "assault rifle" and such... Lots of bolt rifles and Thompson Center single shots that fire 5.56 rounds. What about the 18 year old who owns a Winchester model 94 chambered in 357 or 44mag?? SO he would not be able to purchase ammo for the rifle he legally owns and hunts with because he has no pistol permit??? There's that line in the sand again.... They WILL NEVER STOP!

One last thing... How are they suppose to know the capacity of all of the firearms legally owned in NYS??? Hmmm??? Full mandatory registration, that's how! The writing is on the wall, and their actions prove me right time and time again.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/ne...se-another-une

[redsox]

I didn't really have any problem with registration until this recent ban. And I don't own a bump stock or trigger crank. But WTF. Yesterday its fine and now its a felony? Thats crazy to me. I would disagree with you Joe on where the line is with what is legal and what isn't. I do feel that EVENTUALLY there would have to be a limit on what regular joe should be able to own. I don't believe that private citizens should be able to purchase heavy ordinance. So, somewhere I have a line. I agree its dicy talk and a slippery slope, because chuck schumer would come and take all the sharp sticks if he could. I am hoping that constitutional carry will pass. That will negate the Massachusetts Attorney Generals Consumer Protection list here in Massachusetts. If you don't know what that is, its this completely arbitrary list of what handguns you can buy and what you cannot. For an example, a S&W .380 Bodyguard is ok to own and Ruger LCP .380 is off limits. The two guns are virtually functionally identical. Its nuts. But, if I could carry in New Hampshire, I could buy in New Hampshire and walk out of the store legally with the Ruger.

[Scootertrash]

I'll chime back in tomorrow guys, been super busy.

Keep yer powder dry!

[RIDE-RED 250r]

"Yesterday it's fine, today it's a felony".... A familiar song here in NY since the Safe Act.

As far as heavy ordinance... Well, that's kind of reaching into the extreme areas of the subject. Frankly, 2a is pretty clear about not placing limits on the arms the people are entitled to keep. A howitzer on every hill!! Lol!

But seriously though, we are pretty much talking about small arms here in this context. The steady march of the tyrannical progressive knows no limit. They will be after our bolt action hunting rifles soon...you know, with that scary looking optic and all, they are a deadly "sniper rifle". They. Do. Not. Stop....EVER.

I know a little bit about your state's list of firearms you lowly serfs are allowed to possess.. sickening.

[Scootertrash]

K, sorry for the delay boys.

Heavy ordinance? First off, like Ride-Red, I believe that is getting to the extreme of the issue and the Progressive/liberals already have a variation of that they use to justify their constant push to ban firearms.

It's called "Military Style" firearms. Name me 1 style of firearm that hasn't been used in a military capacity.

I also think those types of weapons would be self regulating to an extent: They would be extremely expensive, the ammo would be extremely expensive since it wouldn't be a mass production type ammo due to the lack of ability of people to afford the weapon, and lastly you'll need enough land to be able to shoot the dang thing.

That's all I'll say on that topic, since this is small arms related.

Age limits? Maybe on purchasing a firearm, ammo not so much.

Keeping track of bad guys is as simple as putting the info on a drivers license or ID card, which could also be used as a voter ID. No ID? No guns, (or voting) period.

My situation? There should be a way for me to clear my name so to speak, of whatever it is that keeps getting me delayed. I've been thru the NICS system enough whereby I should have some sort of notation so that when the dealer calls in my 4473 the agent can see that I've been cleared multiple times. This isn't an issue where I've just had it happen once or twice.

As far as the multiple purchase issue, like I said, multiple purchases of AR lowers is very common. The agent made an assumption. His opinion on how I should conduct my purchases is irrelevant. My purchase was legal and above the board, which should be his only concern. In my opinion, he either knew or got a feeling my dealer didn't know the laws and assumed I didn't or wouldn't know the laws either, in addition to the possibility he feels that citizens shouldn't be acquiring "military style" weapons. That's my opinion and worth every penny you paid for it.

I guess I really don't have that big of a problem with background checks, but the 4473 should be destroyed after confirmation of the ability to purchase, not retained for 20 years. If anybody thinks that these forms wouldn't be used for a forced confiscation, they're a fool.

One only needs to look at "Australian style" gun laws the left tried to promote a few years back: They confiscated weapons but they paid you for them.................with a special tax instituted especially for the confiscation. "We are going to take your guns, but we'll pay you with money we are going to take from you first. Genius! Can I be first in line?

[ironchop]

....
It's called "Military Style" firearms....

Yeah I hate that term.

What they mean is "military looking"

The difference between a real M4("M16") and a civilian AR15 is actually bigger than the difference between an AR15 and any other semi auto rifle like a Ruger 10-22.

It's just looks. People are magically terrified to see black paint, long mags, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and "shoulder things that go up"

Because MOVIES. If Bruce Willis had shot terrorists wielding pump shotguns and semi auto 9mm carbines, then that's what people would be terrified of instead.

If it wasn't for A-team, mini 14s would still be considered a ranch rifle for shooting wolves.


Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[Scootertrash]

LOL @ "Shoulder thing that goes up" I award you 15 internetz!

Most people don't have a clue what that means or where it came from:

[RIDE-RED 250r]

"Military style weapons".. well, let's really dig into that a little bit. How many weapons commonly used today have been or are currently implemented by military? A flintlock rifle was military at some point. The S&W revolver was military at one point. I think what the real deal here is "contemporary" or maybe even "state of the art". They don't mind us having certain weapons (at least that's what they say at this point" so long as it's not as good as what the military and police forces use. That idea is in utter contempt of the 2nd amendment. I believe that no non-criminal civilian should be barred from owning and using contemporary weaponry. Let's get small arms ownership back into compliance with 2a and then we can have the discussion about artillery.

[redsox]

Ok Red, i'm in agreement, especially with the last sentence. Now, tell me the acceptable process for the government to ensure that "no non-criminal civilian is barred from owning and using a contemporary weapon."

Scooter, I saw the video of all the guns being melted down in Australia. I remember owning it on VHS, at least 15 years ago, (but my guess is closer to 25 years). Appalling stuff, and not dissimilar to the bump-stock stuff happening now. What is your opinion on how sales should be regulated? I'm not asking which regulations should be imposed, rather, how the government goes about actually doing the job of regulating?

Chop, I hate to sound redundant, but again, excellent post.

[RIDE-RED 250r]

Dan, we are in agreement that accurate, timely, and free BG checks are not an infringement. The biggest problem though is that the majority of weapons used for criminal purposes are not attained by legal means. I would be in favor of more vigorous enforcement of illegal weapons ownership and illegal acts committed with weapons as well as much more severe penalties for those types of violations. Yes, this most recent school shooting involved a legally purchased and owned weapon. But then it sounds like there were some pretty strong clues about this kid that should have been cause for some action. Very tricky waters to navigate for sure, we cannot convict a person for a crime they have not yet committed, but we also should keep an eye open for signs of an unstable individual who may commit an act.

As a side note to the BG check issue. Maybe local law enforcement agencies should play a role?? I know it's a federal law managed by the feds, but maybe the fact that local law enforcement being closest to the individual could play a role at some level in the process that would serve to streamline the process for guys like Scooter and the issues he has been dealing with as well as perhaps catching a person like the piece of filth that shot up the school in FL before he acquired a weapon??

[ironchop]

...
As a side note to the BG check issue. Maybe local law enforcement agencies should play a role?? I know it's a federal law managed by the feds, but maybe the fact that local law enforcement being closest to the individual could play a role at some level in the process that would serve to streamline the process for guys like Scooter and the issues he has been dealing with as well as perhaps catching a person like the piece of filth that shot up the school in FL before he acquired a weapon??

If you'll remember, they used to be. Gun lobby complained that local LEOs would be too slow and swamped to handle all these checks. So they argued successfully that any delay in a gun sale whatsoever was an infringement on your 2A. This is how the NICS program got started and funded. They told gun owners that "to be fair and quick, we'll need to consolidate into one national background check system run by the FBI" (same org that runs straw purchased guns from AZ over the border to MX cartels and ignores mass shooter warnings on the regular)

Plus it's easier to register all the gun purchases that way with fancy new taxpayer funded digital tyranny machines.




Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk