Gun Compromises.

Quote from Dr. J : I think a lot of the appeal is from novices that don't know current laws. I've mentioned this before, but I listen to a local radio station every day on the ride home and it's been interesting to observe the "education" of the host since Sandy Hook took place. Initially he was for "gun control", AWB, UBGC, all these sort of things, but since he's educated himself and changed his stance. Heck, until a couple weeks ago he didn't know all the stuff one needed to go through to get a CT CCW permit - he thought one could just walk into a store and walk out with a gun! He still, I believe, confuses gun registries - too many people still believe there's some sort of nationwide registry of who owns what... (some would debate the existence of such a thing...)

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : Agreed. Ignorance is a large part of the problem, and the gun control lobby, Obama administration, and mainstream media capitalize on it by deliberately spreading disinformation so that people think what that radio host thinks. The AWB includes rocket launchers, etc. An ignorant person might think one could walk into a gun shop & walk out with a rocket launcher or machine gun with no BGC.

Hmm.......I wonder how many other people think that. I wonder how many people think that a person can "just walk into" a place (say a gun show) "and walk out with a gun."

If that were true, it would have been truly reprehensible.

Quote from Dr. J : I think a lot of the appeal is from novices that don't know current laws. I've mentioned this before, but I listen to a local radio station every day on the ride home and it's been interesting to observe the "education" of the host since Sandy Hook took place. Initially he was for "gun control", AWB, UBGC, all these sort of things, but since he's educated himself and changed his stance. Heck, until a couple weeks ago he didn't know all the stuff one needed to go through to get a CT CCW permit - he thought one could just walk into a store and walk out with a gun! He still, I believe, confuses gun registries - too many people still believe there's some sort of nationwide registry of who owns what... (some would debate the existence of such a thing...)

It's rather sad how many people are ignorant of the laws and a real shame that the media has become an advocacy group rather than a group to really inform. For example, some fool might think that a CT gun show would be a great place to buy a gun without a background check because they have heard about this gun show loophole thing. Of course they can't do that because some states don't legally allow that. In many states that do sellers will refuse to sell to someone out of state or someone who refuses to show ID... if the gun show even has or allows private sales. Thanks to the bad press some are simply not allowing private sales. That of course won't stop some people from screaming about the lack of BGC even though they can't explain how they will be effective given the loopholes even a BGC law would basically leave open. For example, how can you prove that two private sellers didn't do a BGC without registration? Of course as I've said about knowledge in the past, you can lead the mare to water but you can't make her drink.

Quote from onscreen : Honestly I figure it would still be a non-issue but since currently these guns are expensive, in order to avoid any claims that new machine guns would flood the market I decided we would claim an artificial price hike. Now people can't claim the new lower price would result in a blood bath.

I'm far more concerned about people having to pay a lot for a carry permit than for an automatic weapon. In New York, a CCW will cost you $350 before you even buy the gun. Once the feds are allowed to make a right into a privilege, it will forever be a privilege, and they'll make the rules for that privilege.

Similar to why I brought up Texas permits when Texas was mentioned. People act like Texas is so free, but it costs you $140 for a carry permit, and you can only carry concealed. That is working on being changed right now, but we'll see what happens.

And half the time, a high-cost permit fee only covers the administrative costs of the fee and not any potential required training. In such cases, it's just a money-grab scam and a poll tax on your rights.

Anyway, we're on page four... I'm going to have to scroll back and see if any anti-gun people have put forth any compromises yet.

edit: Nope, don't see any of the usual anti-gun suspects offering any compromises yet.

I find it rather shocking that people are against background checks.
It's as though you want felons and others who are disqualified from purchasing "legal" weapons to have unrestricted access to them.
It simply makes no sense to me at all.

The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned.
Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns.

I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all.

As for infringing on LAC's, if you truly are a LAC what are you afraid of with a BGC?
If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

Quote from VaporTrailer : I find it rather shocking that people are against background checks. It's as though you want felons and others who are disqualified from purchasing "legal" weapons to have unrestricted access to them. It simply makes no sense to me at all. The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned. Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns. I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all. As for infringing on LAC's, if you truly are a LAC what are you afraid of with a BGC? If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

There are two reasons why someone might be against universal BGC.
1. Will they be effective. They will add a level of harassment to legal gun owners. Now that in and of itself is not a reason to refuse to have them. However, if they aren't effective AND they harass then that's a reason not to have them. It is questionable whether or not they will be effective.
2. The second point is that a universal BGC system can be used to create a back door registration of who owns what guns. It wont' happen right away but eventually it could. There are a number of reasons why gun owners general fear registration which is a separate topic. As for the idea that if you have nothing to fear... well we have laws against illegal search which in theory if I have nothing to hide, why should I worry if a cop wants to search my trunk or house?

looking for a close by gun shop in the surrounding states that sells 30 rd Pmags, any one know of em?

Yes I know the upcoming shows in Pa and Va, looking for a close by shop now, even though Im likely going to the Pa show....thanks in advance

Quote from VaporTrailer : I find it rather shocking that people are against background checks. It's as though you want felons and others who are disqualified from purchasing "legal" weapons to have unrestricted access to them. It simply makes no sense to me at all. The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned. Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns. I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all. As for infringing on LAC's, if you truly are a LAC what are you afraid of with a BGC? If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

I support states prohibiting private sales. Not the federal government. Congress has no such authority under Article I, Section 8, regardless of what some terrorists think the Commerce Clause means.

Quote from onscreen : So in reading your post I think if the powers that be in DC proposed something like universal BGC but offered something like the federal CCW permit that allowed carry in public places like schools you might say, yes, this is a reasonable compromise and might support such a bill.

Do you think this would work? Federal law would overstep and hurt states' rights. Right now concealed carry and gun purchases are states/local govt rights. While I agree that concealed carry nationwide would be good, our government obviously does not believe in compromise. Just after the "tax debate" was done and the Republicans caved on tax hikes, Obama said that the tax issue was not over and that the Dems already had that, they need more.

Quote from VaporTrailer : I find it rather shocking that people are against background checks. It's as though you want felons and others who are disqualified from purchasing "legal" weapons to have unrestricted access to them. It simply makes no sense to me at all. The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned. Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns. I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all. As for infringing on LAC's, if you truly are a LAC what are you afraid of with a BGC? If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

More background checks and registering guns adds costs. Some places already charge outrageous amounts like $50 to do a 5 min check and register. Also, this will entail a used market to use a 3rd party service. Say someone goes crazy, the 3rd party could be liable as well.

Quote from Dr. J : Quote from TRNT : Interesting......Rand Paul thinks Giant should be allowed to not allow blacks in their stores. Whatsayyou? Private enterprises should be able to do whatever private enterprises want. If I knew a local grocery store didn't support CCW and I made a habit of CCing.... I'd choose to not go to that store. If it made a dent in their bottom line, they may change their stance.

Agreed, unless they are selling a necessity. Food is considered a necessity.

Children can back out of most purchases, regardless of the store policy as kids don't have the capacity to agree to contracts. One thing children can't back out of, though , is a purchase for a necessity. I believe the reasoning is so that stores that do sell necessities, don't ban kids.

I don't think it is background checks that people take issue with; it's the government keeping records of who applies for them that is the concern.

There is a difference between private enterprises with public access and those without. Any place that allows the public to enter at will should not be allowed to negate a creator given right (the bill of rights). If they are a private membership place, then I would agree.

Quote from dealgate : There is a difference between private enterprises with public access and those without. Any place that allows the public to enter at will should not be allowed to negate a creator given right (the bill of rights). If they are a private membership place, then I would agree.

If someone enters say Target and starts saying Target sucks and Walmart is better Target has the right to ask them to leave. I would think a similar rule for concealed carry would be reasonable. What the "wild west" theorist would have us believe is this will result in many people just shooting leaf and right. Really? The people who are inclined to shoot first and ask questions later are not likely to pay too much attention to the gun free signs.

Quote from VaporTrailer : The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned. Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns.

How often do terrorits, people with a history of DV, or the mentally ill buy from a private seller when they can't legally buy from a federal dealer (the type of sale that would show up on a BGC)?

Quote : I fully understand the arguement that criminals will just find other means... GREAT, go out on the black market, pay outrageous prices and risk getting busted. Thats a far better situation than allowing them to just walk into a gun show and buy weapons without any BGC at all.

What is the typical ratio of private sellers vs federal dealers at a gun show?

Quote from onscreen : If someone enters say Target and starts saying Target sucks and Walmart is better Target has the right to ask them to leave. I would think a similar rule for concealed carry would be reasonable. What the "wild west" theorist would have us believe is this will result in many people just shooting leaf and right. Really? The people who are inclined to shoot first and ask questions later are not likely to pay too much attention to the gun free signs.

I think they should be allowed to post signs advertising their desire to have unarmed "victim" zones, however, there should be no penalty for someone legally carrying on their premises in spite of their signs.

And yes, even the 1st has its limitations. If someone was disrupting the store, the store has every right to ask/force that person to leave.