Do you support any new gun legislation?

[Savago]

Gentlemen

In face of the terrorist attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, I have being thinking about the current state of affairs in America.

I have being studying guns and practicing marksmanship and came to not only appreciate the right to bear arms but to value access to guns by law abiding citizens as a basic human right.

I grew up under a military dictatorship and can attest that the first step in a a coup is to confiscate people's guns and next kill freedom of speech. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they chose the 1st and the 2nd amendment.

That being said, something is wrong in the USA. Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.

I feel something has to be done to try to address the situation, really.

Sure, there is no perfect solution to a complex problem.

You could argue the whole day which guns are 'evil' or not and get lost in technicalities of what is an 'assault rifle' and so on.

If left in the hands of Dems, they would try to outlaw everything. On the other hand, I have the impression that if is up to the GOP, they would suggest that pre-schoolers should be carrying guns (ok, a bit of hyperbole here).

But keep in mind what the second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

A 'well regulated Militia'. It means that some regulations are acceptable.

I think some restrictions could be tried with a 10 years horizon to fade (e.g. reduced capacity magazines) and others should become the law of the land (e.g. background checks).

I mean, backgrounds checks for buying a new gun seems to me common sense. Do we want criminals to have access to guns? I known I don't.

A 10 year ban on semi-auto rifles that fire .223 Remington/556 Nato? Not ideal, maybe restrict it to a proper age (e.g. older than 30 years?) is worthy trying.

Fact of the matter is that Reagan signed a ban on full auto guns. And Bush Senior signed a ban on imports of AK-47 rifles.

The point is that *something*, *anything* has to be done.

Not doing anything is against the best interests of the nation.

[Serk]

I support the repeal of all illegal standing gun laws.

NFA, GCA, Biden's Gun Free School Zone Act (Which was directly the cause of the rash of school shootings) state, local laws, all of them.

Yes, even that one.


Edit to add - BTW, I'll be in Santa Rosa Monday June 20th if you wanna have a quick Howdy.....PM me....

(I'll be in Monterey the next night, but no offense, but my soldier daughter takes precedence for my limited time that night. )


Edit Edit - Yes. Even those.

[Chrisj CMA]

We need to punish criminal behavior especially when guns are involved. No getting off because you are special. There are plenty of laws on the books to keep us safe if they were just enforced. Take away all gun free zones.  Make buildings safer and fund armed police at all schools. Let law enforcement do what is needed and quit handcuffing and vilifying them

[Psychotic Bovine]

To open, Reagan did not ban full autos.  That was done in 1934. And it wasn't a ban, you can still get them, just have to pay $200 and do some paperwork and get a background check.  Anyway, onto the meat of the discussion,
First "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment does not mean "restricted".  It means "well trained". That's the definition of that term at the time.  
Second, "The People" appears more than a few times.  It means us.  The fact that the 2nd Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights is important.  The Bill of Rights is not the rights of a government. It's the rights of us, the citizens of the United States.  We are the militia.  We are also individuals and don't magically get a Right because we are in a group.
Now, these more frequent mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.  It has nothing to do with firearms. Semi auto rifles and pistols have been around for over 130 years.  "High capacity" is not new, either.  The AR is certainly not new, produced in the 60's. Keep in mind, the Virginia Tech shooter claimed the lives of 32 people.  He was armed with a Glock 19 in 9mm and a Walther P22 in .22 LR.
What has changed in the past couple of decades is attitudes.  Social media makes bullying 24/7 and without boundaries.  The kid can't leave school to escape it.  The key indicator is the age of most of the mass shooters:  In high school, or barely out. That right there is the key to this mess.  Also, nearly EVERY mass shooting has one thing in common.  Nearly all the venues were posted as gun free zones.  That's not a coincidence.  The cretins were looking for easy targets.  Honest people respect those signs, on a lot of cases.
The 3 most deadly mass murders in recent US history had nothing to do with firearms.  Oklahoma City bombing claimed nearly 180 lives.  The Happy Land nightclub arson claimed nearly 90. And 9/11 claimed nearly 3,000.  Evil will always find a way to do evil. China has had mass stabbings where scores were killed.
Besides, the banning and confiscation of 20 million or so Ar-15's would literally bring the court system to it's knees.  You see, the 5th and 14th Amendments say we cannot be deprived of property without due process.  The 4th says they need to have warrants specifying what they are looking for and where it might be.  
If our gov't ever decides to overstep those amendments, i would certainly hope that there would be a mass, armed rebellion.  Remember, 3% is very important in this discussion.

"We need to do something" is NOT a solution.  It's the first step in further draconian edicts.  History proves this.

[Jess from VA]

The Left hates the 2d Amendment and private firearm ownership (and anything else in the US Constitution that gets in their way of political power and domination and control of the People from cradle to grave).

They have been trying to restrict, limit and prohibit private firearm ownership for decades.

There are already tens of thousands of firearms laws and regulations (Fed and States).  

The Left is also soft on crime, punishment, prisons, prosecutions, and lately anti-police and pro anarchy.

The Left and their enabling main stream media spend their days stirring up hate and discontent and division in this country to a truly subversive level solely to obtain political power and domination over the People.  They do not care about the People or crime or victims of mass shootings, except to use them for political gain.  This subversive culture of constant hate and division and discontent is more responsible for mass shootings by disturbed young people than any other cause.  

The Left hates personal freedoms and liberties and the US Constitution.

The Left can never be trusted to do anything in the best interests of the County or the People.  Ever!

No law or regulation of the Left should ever be passed into law, and everything they do or say should be disbelieved and resisted.

This includes any current attempts to pass reasonable gun laws.  

On the other hand, any reasoned and rational attempts to actually stop school shootings, like school security, armed school personnel, abolition of gun free zones, and mental health intervention and treatment, and maybe even a Constitutional Red Flag law are all worthy of hard work and strong consideration.  

And BTW, no new law will ever stop lunatics and psychopaths and criminals from doing the terrible things they do.  And a percentage of humans will always be defective unit lunatics, psychopaths and criminals.  And as population increases, so will their numbers.   So the intelligent man arms and trains himself against their mayhem.  And with the best quality available hardware.  Including AR15s.

[Rams]

And BTW, no new law will ever stop lunatics and psychopaths and criminals from doing the terrible things they do.  And a percentage of humans will always be defective unit lunatics, psychopaths and criminals.

Whole heartedly agree.   The Left's ultimate goal is to dis-arm the public.   De-funding LEOs had the expected result.   Criminals obviously don't respect or follow the law and now they want to take away our rights to defend ourselves starting with those young enough to serve in the military.

Do I have a problem with background checks, nope.   But, you better be able to prove a person is mentally deficient before taking away any Constitutional Right for me to support such a move.

Rams

[scooperhsd]

There is not much that can be done to change the gun environment in the US at this time.

Of course, the ultimate changer would be to amend the constitution to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. I do not see this happening in our lifetimes.

I think some of the problem would go away IF we had LEOs and DAs who actually did their jobs and get any criminal using a gun thrown in jail for a LONG TIME (if they ever get out at all). Of course, this means needing to build more jails too.

In light of the <mass shooting events> by recent Highschool age people, perhaps NICS needs changed to include the last 3 years of a juvenile record as well. A deeper dive into a person's social media could be warranted.

The big problem appears to be that these young people are exactly the ones getting bullied , both in person and on social media. It never stops, until they finally explode and we have another mass shooting event. QED - the best way to STOP the mass shooting events is for parents , schools, and any other youth activity to start shutting down such bullying, and provide counseling for the bullied on coping strategies. Is this going to be perfect - probably not. But it makes alot more sense than restricting firearms from the rest of the population. I cannot believe that anyone thinks that going to retrieve / confiscate the literally millions of firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition out there from a population that does not want to give them up is a good idea.

Just my comments...

[Willow]

... Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.
...

If one believes that I have this bridge ...   

Anti-gun folks want to concentrate on the militia phrase in the second amendment.  That phrase simply refers to the need for an armed populace.  Anti-gun folks seem too quickly to ignore the will not be infringed phrase.  Any restrictions on gun bearing is an infringement.

Being in favor of limiting civilian weapons to non-militarily used firearms is a restriction and contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the populace should be armed as and ready to function as the people's military.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. 

[old2soon]

         When I was growin up in the 50s and 60s differences Were Settled after school off school property and teeth were loosend and noses and knuckles got bloody. And I'd say 9 times outa 10 the 2 became friends after fist city. Schools been out awhile now and when I git into town I can tell just by looking which kids are getting outside and which aren't. Those staying inside are Still pasty winter white. Do my observations mean anything in the greater scheme of things? I'm not sure.
          I've also stated that Any Weapon is NOT the problem. A Weapon Must be OPERATED! Much like any implement or tool or powered vehicle. Europe and Asian Countries have seen trucks automobiles buses and airplanes turned into "assault weapons"! As have AMERICA suffered similar attacks. BUT folks in deception central WANT AMERICA DISARMED! You only need go back a century or less to see how well that works out for collective "they"! WE THE PEOPLE on the other hand git rounded up and headed to the ovens or kneel and git a bullet in the back of ones head! THAT be a bit ironic! 
          But fer craps sake lets do SOMETHING right wrong or indifferent "they" plea!  RIDE SAFE.

[old2soon]

... Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.
...

If one believes that I have this bridge ...   

Anti-gun folks want to concentrate on the militia phrase in the second amendment.  That phrase simply refers to the need for an armed populace.  Anti-gun folks seem too quickly to ignore the will not be infringed phrase.  Any restrictions on gun bearing is an infringement.

Being in favor of limiting civilian weapons to non-militarily used firearms is a restriction and contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the populace should be armed as and ready to function as the people's military.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. 

         Carl-the hand wringers and easily led do NOT git this at all! RIDE SAFE.

[suthrncop]

Why not try prosecuting the criminals, De-glamorizing crime and punishing the criminals instead.  I think that would work instead of passing any laws that infringe on honest peoples rights,

[Ramie]

There was a time when an adult could purchase a surplus rifle at a Gambles hardware store for $35 no questions asked.  Guns are not the problem, maybe guns in the wrong persons hand is but taking guns from law abiding people is not an answer.  I'm always surprised when these shooting happen in schools that no one asks, "What's wrong with our schools that students or ex-students want to come in and shoot anyone they can?"

[lakehunter]

Watching the public news media all the reports seem to be body counts and pushing the idea that a "gun" is the culprit. Since fact checking is all the rage now days lets ponder this :

1) no gun can kill someone without a person wielding it, be it pulling the trigger or just beating someone with it.

2) the most common method of murder is blunt force, no gun involved (uncensored FBI reports will confirm this).
 
3) body count ... more deaths occur from motor vehicles being operated by under the influence drivers, that includes drugs, alcohol and cell phones. (lets try banning cell phones or restricting them to over 21 years of age and see what is said )

Just these 3 items put down 90% of all gun law talking points. We have enough gun laws and laws against murder / violent attacks. Lets put the focus on the "people problem" that is the root in all the cases mentioned above. Boost funding / enforcement of the laws we have. Reduce the laws restricting areas where lawful , CWP trained and permitted adults may carry, and most of all please remember :

The only way to stop a bad guy with a weapon is with a good guy who is armed equally or better.

These are my opinions, like all of us we all have them and the right to voice them.

GOD Bless the USA Forever !

[The emperor has no clothes]

... Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.
...

If one believes that I have this bridge ...   

Anti-gun folks want to concentrate on the militia phrase in the second amendment.  That phrase simply refers to the need for an armed populace.  Anti-gun folks seem too quickly to ignore the will not be infringed phrase.  Any restrictions on gun bearing is an infringement.

Being in favor of limiting civilian weapons to non-militarily used firearms is a restriction and contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the populace should be armed as and ready to function as the people's military.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. 

The rationale you support in “will not be infringed” would have guns legally in the hands of robbers, murderers, rapists, psychotics, etc.

Your theory of more guns has proven to be severely faulty. If the phrase “a well regulated militia” didn’t mean anything, they wouldn’t have put it in there.


(I believe the bridge is no longer for sale, it was bought by a man in Kansas)

[The emperor has no clothes]

There was a time when an adult could purchase a surplus rifle at a Gambles hardware store for $35 no questions asked.  Guns are not the problem, maybe guns in the wrong persons hand is but taking guns from law abiding people is not an answer.  I'm always surprised when these shooting happen in schools that no one asks, "What's wrong with our schools that students or ex-students want to come in and shoot anyone they can?"

And that gun likely had a 4 round capacity. 

[Willow]

... Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.
...

If one believes that I have this bridge ...   

Anti-gun folks want to concentrate on the militia phrase in the second amendment.  That phrase simply refers to the need for an armed populace.  Anti-gun folks seem too quickly to ignore the will not be infringed phrase.  Any restrictions on gun bearing is an infringement.

Being in favor of limiting civilian weapons to non-militarily used firearms is a restriction and contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the populace should be armed as and ready to function as the people's military.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. 

Yes, I know I'm quoting my own post, something that normally shouldn't be done.  I did some research and felt I should add some details to what I called a ridiculous statement.

Since and including the year 2000 there have been 23,984 vehicle deaths of children 5 - 14.  The stats aren't separated to allow me to give numbers for strictly school age but it would obviously be higher.

Since and including the year 2000 there have been some 354 school shooting deaths recorded.  Of those some 324 incidents only 6 reported deaths of more than five.  The death counts of each include the suicides or killing of shooters which most often occurs.  The school shooting reports include colleges and universities.  There were 111 shooting deaths in post high school institutions leaving 243 in high schools and below.  

Doing thw math it simply is not possible that the chances of a young person being killed in a school shooting is anywhere near the chances of that child dying as a vehicle fatality.

If we really do care that much for the lives of our youngsters, school shootings would not be our primary focus.

[Willow]

The rationale you support in “will not be infringed” would have guns legally in the hands of robbers, murderers, rapists, psychotics, etc.

Your theory of more guns has proven to be severely faulty. If the phrase “a well regulated militia” didn’t mean anything, they wouldn’t have put it in there.


(I believe the bridge is no longer for sale, it was bought by a man in Kansas)

I didn't claim that the law would make sense to you or anyone else.  I simply stated what the laws says.  If you don't like the amendment then go to work to have the Constitution changed rather than bothering to support laws that violate the Constitution as it is.

Liberals seem to seldom make sense.

I also didn't say that "a well regulated militia" didn't make sense.  I did point out to how the anti-gun folks concentrate on that phrase rather than paying attention to "will not be infringed."

My theory (as you call it) of more good guys with guns has not been tried.  Every effort of the anti-gun folks has been to legally limit guns carried by law abiding citizens while failing to reduce the number of guns borne by robbers, murderers, rapists, and psychotics.

Please don't respond to my posts, meathead.  You have proven to me that you have a very serious reading comprehension problem.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list.  I will be campaigning with the rest of the staff to remove your participation from the board if you continue this pattern of personal attack.

For those who may be thinking I am being unfair to meathead, he has made some 27,544 posts on our board.  The vast majority of those posts are simply attacking persons or discussions.

[lakehunter]

There was a time when an adult could purchase a surplus rifle at a Gambles hardware store for $35 no questions asked.  Guns are not the problem, maybe guns in the wrong persons hand is but taking guns from law abiding people is not an answer.  I'm always surprised when these shooting happen in schools that no one asks, "What's wrong with our schools that students or ex-students want to come in and shoot anyone they can?"

I can remember walking through a local hardware store with my dad and seeing a couple old wooden barrels with surplus M1 Carbines sitting in them. Yep, less than 100 bucks bought you a real military assault rifle that was battle seasoned, had a 15 or 30 round magazine and you could carry it home with no checks at all other than a drivers license. He bought one of them and not long after a surplus SKS. They are fond memories now stored in a safe, ammo costs too much to take them to the range. That was in the 60's , a couple decades earlier one could but a Thompson "Tommy Gun" in a hardware store, a full auto with no restrictions, farmer browns had them when the Feds and Unions went at it in the coal miners conflict. They could defend their ground when needed but there was never reports of school shootings ... obviously the guns havn't grown artificial brains yet so it must be the people that need fixing.

[Savago]

... while failing to reduce the number of guns borne by robbers, murderers, rapists, and psychotics.

Sounds a lot like background checks to block criminals and mentally sick people from buying guns could help?

[Willow]

... while failing to reduce the number of guns borne by robbers, murderers, rapists, and psychotics.

Sounds a lot like background checks to block criminals and mentally sick people from buying guns could help?

Apparently not.  We have background checks and the bad guys still get the weapons they want.  It seems to escape many that withholding weapons from the law abiding citizens has little or no impact on the availability of arms for criminals.

[Jess from VA]

The two most sought after items to steal in home invasions and robberies and B & Es, are drugs and guns.  Cash and valuables are only 3d.  

Any person who has a criminal record (or any other kind of record) that will come up in a standard FFL background check (that already exists) that makes them lawfully ineligible to buy and own firearms never buy guns from FFLs.  If they are caught doing so, it's another felony (IF anyone will prosecute it, and there is a long history of chronic failure to prosecute it).  

They steal them or buy them from other criminals.  And prices are generally cheaper than FFLs too.  

While private sales (in states that don't require them all to go through an FFL; the so called gun show loophole) do occur, criminals are not known to pursue many private sales (except from other criminals).  

It's my experience that private sellers (without an FFL background check requirement) are extremely careful and vigilant about who they sell to if it's not to known friends or family.  Many private sellers require a buyer to show a state issue CCW to make a sale, and you can't get a CCW without a full background check to ensure you are a lawful firearm owner.  It does happen, but not that often.  

No lawful owner ever wants to sell to a prohibited person.  If they don't require a CCW, they require a driver's license and other ID, compare photos to the buyer, and write down the name address and other data and keep it for their records.

A national required background check for all private sales is not going to stop any criminals from getting guns.... the same way they always have.  But it is a good way to add information in creating a national registry of private firearm owners.  

[Savago]

Apparently not.  We have background checks and the bad guys still get the weapons they want.

I thought only a few States (e.g. CA/NY/etc) required background checks for PPT (Private Party Transfers), but I may be mistaken.

You said, quote 'We have background checks...'. May I ask what do you mean by that?

If not using background checks, how do you suggest that we 'reduce the number of guns borne by robbers, murderers, rapists, and psychotics'?

I understand that we are on the same page here. As I wrote above, I personally don't want criminals having access to guns. The same goes for crazy people.

[carolinarider09]

I did a search, you can do a search as well.   Here is the result

Leading Causes Of Death In Teenagers
The chart below shows the leading causes of death for the teenage population as well as a breakdown of accidental deaths by “mechanism of injury”:

Motor vehicle traffic accidents (73%)
Accidental poisonings (7%)
Unintentional drownings (5%)
Other land transport accidents (3%)
Accidental discharge of a firearm (2%)

https://getsure.org/leading-causes-of-death-by-age/

There are other websites that have similar data but you have to be careful because lots of them are construed to move the data in the way they favor.   

I believe the data above is rational and correct. 

So, if so, and someone wishes to limit deaths to teens, ban driving unit they are 21 or maybe 25 or 30....

Let them drive/ride bikes back and fort to work.

[Jess from VA]

There has been a national background check requirement for all FFL sales in the US since 1998.  And that is every business, store and private individual that holds a Federal Firearms License.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, FL has no state requirement, but allows each county to require a background check (and waiting periods) if they want to, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,  Washington, require background checks for private sales.  A few of these states require any private purchaser to have previously obtained a state license to own firearms, which includes a background check.  And some states give state issued CCW holders (who all get background checks prior to issuance), some leeway in private sales. A couple of these states only require background checks for private sales of certain (but not all) firearms.

 

[Savago]

@Jess: thanks for the clarification. Always appreciate your knowledge on all things gun related!
 

[Psychotic Bovine]

... Something is wrong when odds of young people (less than 21) of being killed in a mass shooting is higher than dying in a car crash.
...

If one believes that I have this bridge ...    

Anti-gun folks want to concentrate on the militia phrase in the second amendment.  That phrase simply refers to the need for an armed populace.  Anti-gun folks seem too quickly to ignore the will not be infringed phrase.  Any restrictions on gun bearing is an infringement.

Being in favor of limiting civilian weapons to non-militarily used firearms is a restriction and contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the populace should be armed as and ready to function as the people's military.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.  

The rationale you support in “will not be infringed” would have guns legally in the hands of robbers, murderers, rapists, psychotics, etc.

Your theory of more guns has proven to be severely faulty. If the phrase “a well regulated militia” didn’t mean anything, they wouldn’t have put it in there.


(I believe the bridge is no longer for sale, it was bought by a man in Kansas)

Since "well regulated militia" is in there for a reason, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" is in there for a reason, too.

Since everyone knew the framers had already defined the militia, they could have stopped at "A Well regulated militia is necessary for a free state" and be done with it.  But, for some little reason they put that whole pesky "right of the people" stuff in there, almost like it was important or something.

By the way, that phrase "right of the people" appears in Amendments 1, 2 and 4. Almost like it's important or something. 

"Shall not be infringed" can't be ignored, either. 

It's been ruled more than a few times that "The People" are the citizens of the US.

An inconvenient truth for some.

[Willow]

Apparently not.  We have background checks and the bad guys still get the weapons they want.

I thought only a few States (e.g. CA/NY/etc) required background checks for PPT (Private Party Transfers), but I may be mistaken.

You said, quote 'We have background checks...'. May I ask what do you mean by that?

If not using background checks, how do you suggest that we 'reduce the number of guns borne by robbers, murderers, rapists, and psychotics'?

I understand that we are on the same here. As I wrote above, I personally don't want criminals having access to guns. The same goes for crazy people. 

By that I mean virtually anywhere in the U.S.A. a background check to some degree is done before a legal firearm purchase.  there are exceptions.  Even when a background check is done most states and localities make it rather difficult for a law abiding citizen to carry that firearm in public.  The criminals are not constrained.

I don't think reducing the number of guns borne by the criminal and the crazy is the answer.  Certainly limiting the availability to law abiding citizens does nothing to reduce the availability to the criminal and the crazy.  Even if we could, the definition of crazy has been changed multiple times in the past few decades.  I'm not comfortable with where that might lead.

[MAD6Gun]

Apparently not.  We have background checks and the bad guys still get the weapons they want.

I understand that we are on the same here. As I wrote above, I personally don't want criminals having access to guns. The same goes for crazy people.

 And you think we do? I would say most if not all legal gun owners wouldn't want criminals and "crazy people" to have access to guns.

 How many people lie on the forms 4473? The Buffalo shooter and the UvaldI shooter would have both had to lie on that form about their mental status to purchase their guns. In fact since president Obama admitted to using cocane when he was younger that alone would prevent him from buying a gun.

The forms question e states..

  "Are you an unlawful user of,or addicted to,Marijuana or any depressant,stimulant,narcotic drug,or any other controlled substance? 
  WARNING: The use or possession of Marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

 I can think of one individual here that admitted he couldn't wait to retire so he could smoke pot again. That would prevent him from ever buying a gun again.

[Savago]

I don't think reducing the number of guns borne by the criminal and the crazy is the answer.

OK.

[Jess from VA]

@Jess: thanks for the clarification. Always appreciate your knowledge on all things gun related!
 

Certainly.

BTW, the document I used to create that post (I don't have this stuff memorized) failed to include my own state of Virginia, which (just barely) passed background checks for all private sales under our former governor recently.  Unfortunately.  So Virginia should also be listed. 

 

[Patrick]

I just sold a few handguns to various friends. So apparently NYS doesn't require a background check for this, but, they do require a state issued pistol permit [ which is somewhat hard to get]. So all we had to do is go to the county office and fill out the transfer papers.

[Rams]

I just sold a few handguns to various friends. So apparently NYS doesn't require a background check for this, but, they do require a state issued pistol permit [ which is somewhat hard to get]. So all we had to do is go to the county office and fill out the transfer papers.

So, I assume that if one were to lose a weapon (like in a boating incident) one is required to report the weapon lost?

Rams

[Chrisj CMA]

I just sold a few handguns to various friends. So apparently NYS doesn't require a background check for this, but, they do require a state issued pistol permit [ which is somewhat hard to get]. So all we had to do is go to the county office and fill out the transfer papers.

Pistol permit. That’s just wrong. Even a concealed carry permit that you have to apply and pay for is wrong. All these permits and registrations and licenses are just infringements that are actually unconstitutional. Once A person passes a background check the government should stay out of it.

[Jess from VA]

I just sold a few handguns to various friends. So apparently NYS doesn't require a background check for this, but, they do require a state issued pistol permit [ which is somewhat hard to get]. So all we had to do is go to the county office and fill out the transfer papers.

So, I assume that if one were to lose a weapon (like in a boating incident) one is required to report the weapon lost?

Rams

Ron, you have to check with your own state laws, it varies.

The new gun laws we got under the former governor of VA in 2020, includes a duty to report all stolen or lost firearms, with punishment for not.

Virginia requires firearm owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm. A gun owner must report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency or the State Police within 48 hours after he or she discovers that the gun is lost or stolen or is informed by someone else who has “personal knowledge” of the loss or theft.

The law enforcement agency then reports the loss or theft to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center.

If a person reports such a loss or theft in good faith, the law provides that person with immunity from criminal and civil liability for any damages from acts or omissions resulting from the loss or theft. (implying that you should be charged or sued for the damages if you don't report it)

If a gun owner fails to report a stolen or lost gun to law enforcement within 48 hours, Virginia law imposes a civil penalty of $250.  The attorney for the county, city, or town where the violation occurred has the authority by statute to enforce this penalty and collect the civil fine, which must be paid into the local treasury.

As of May 17, 2021, Mississippi does not require firearms owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm.

Also, it is noteworthy that there is good SCOTUS case law for the proposition that any state or fed laws that require a citizen to report anything to G agencies can run afoul of the 5th amendment prohibition against self incrimination.  So, if reporting a loss or theft could incriminate you criminally, you have a lawful defense to such a charge if you didn't.  Thus note VA's punishment is only a civil fine.

EDIT:  All politics and gun grabbing policies aide (making us all skeptical of any gun law), it's generally a good idea to report a lost or stolen firearm.  As long as you are not incriminating yourself in some way.

If lost in a public area, they'll run right down and help you look (for public safety).  

If it's ever recovered, you might get it back.

If it's possessor is charged with it's theft, you can be a trial witness as lawful owner to prove theft in court.

The interesting thing about the VA law (and likely others) is giving you immunity from criminal and civil liability, so long as your report within 48 hours.

But if some reckless bonehead leaves his loaded gun in plain view in his unlocked car, and a child or maniac sees it, grabs it and proceeds to shoot everyone around him, if you report it lost before they come to arrest you (and within 48 hours), you should be able to escape being criminally charged and civilly sued as you would so richly deserve.   So it works both ways.

But if you rob a bank and leave it on the counter, it's probably best not to report it lost.


Which brings me to the large numbers of people who driving drunk, have a one car accident and do a lot of destruction, get out, limp home, and report the car stolen.  They frown on this kind of reporting.  
 
Policeman:  Mr Jones, you look like you've recently been in an accident, you're bleeding from the head.
Jones:        Me?  No.  I mean, I just fell down my basement stairs a few minutes ago.


 

[Patrick]

In NYS a pistol permit is now renewable thanks to Gov. cuomo. I've had an upstate NY permit since 1971 and a downstate NY permit since 1975 [ had to turn that one in when I retired].

You do have to report if lost or stolen, which I would do anyway and I would make sure I got a copy of the report.

[scooperhsd]

You mean Andrew Cuomo actually did something good for gun owners ? I'm shocked !!

[Moonshot_1]

The 2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the “well regulated Militia” mean? What is its purpose in this amendment?

Some, I’d say most people, believe that it establishes the Militia. A Militia to be manned by the people.
I believe that is an incorrect interpretation of the amendment.

The “well regulated militia” is actually the REASON for the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Founding Fathers just went up against a “well regulated militia” in the King’s army. They knew what corrupt power could do with a well regulated militia. They also knew that a well regulated militia is a necessary thing.

And the fact that the Militia is established in Article 1, section 8 (see below) would make it extremely odd that they would insert the notion of a militia again in an amendment.
 
From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So it seems to me the only reason to mention a “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd Amendment is to expressly justify the reason the government “shall not” infringe on the people’s right to bear arms.

Basically they don't (didn't) trust the government with unchecked power, which is consistent with their views at the time.

[carolinarider09]

Basically they don't (didn't) trust the government with unchecked power, which is consistent with their views at the time.

[/quote

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   So Help Me God!

Free speech, number one
Right to keep and bear arms number two.

All for a singular reason, once endowed with power, many folks cannot help but try and get more.

[Patrick]

You mean Andrew Cuomo actually did something good for gun owners ? I'm shocked !!

Heck no !

For as far back as can remember, or know, there was a one time initial fee for a pistol permit which I assume covered some of the background check and processing time. I forget what it was, but, I think it was $50.
Then along came  coumo and his need for all the money he could extort form the taxpayers and up jumped a renewal fee for the permits.

[Skinhead]

I just sold a few handguns to various friends. So apparently NYS doesn't require a background check for this, but, they do require a state issued pistol permit [ which is somewhat hard to get]. So all we had to do is go to the county office and fill out the transfer papers.

Pistol permit. That’s just wrong. Even a concealed carry permit that you have to apply and pay for is wrong. All these permits and registrations and licenses are just infringements that are actually unconstitutional. Once A person passes a background check the government should stay out of it.

So let me relate my son's experience with his right "that shall not be infringed".  He had a Louisiana state concealed weapons permit that he had to pay to attend a class and pay a fee for the permit.  (what other rights do you have to pay a fee to exercise?)  His permit expired during the Covid fiasco, and prior to it expiring he applied for renewal, which required him to be fingerprinted, as he was in order to be issued the original permit.  He never received a new permit and was unknowingly carrying his weapon illegally on an expired permit.  When he called to inquire about his renewal, they told him there was a glitch due to Covid (a government induced glitch) and he needed to submit a new application with new fingerprints as they don't keep the prints on file after 30 days(????) Why?  Also, fingerprints don't change, so the originals from his original permit could still have been used IF THEY KEPT THEM ON FILE!!!  So he had to drive from NOLA to Baton Rouge to be fingerprinted and wait 3 hrs for the process to be completed.  Now I ask again, what other rights do you have to endure such inconvenience and expense to exercise.  Especially when the government drops the ball and doesn't uphold it's responsibility to insure your rights??  Yep, no infringement here.

Oh, and I'm sure criminals and the insane would all go through this song and dance to lawfully possess a firearm.