Tero wrote:The trouble is, you patriots actually supply the guns to the criminals.
No, we supply guns to law-abiding citizens. It's a felony to provide a gun to a criminal.
The guns get sold to flea markets etc where nobody keeps track of them.
Depends on the state. In Colorado no background checks were required for private sale transactions, now they are. Of course how the state plans to police Jim Bob selling a hunting rifle to Charlie out in the woods is another matter, and one which almost all of the county Sheriff's have declined to participate in because it is a pointless, useless law that makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for no good reason other than as a sop to Democrat anti-gun legislators and mindless anti-gun idiots.
Criminals, of course, are going to get guns anyway, and the facts show that fewer than 4% of crime guns are obtained at "gun shows." The vast majority are stolen and traded among criminals.
Then again, it's true that at the federal level, and in many states, "nobody keeps track of [guns]" because we, the People, do not want or authorize government to do so. We deny our government the power to register guns because all that accomplishes is the registration of LEGALLY OWNED guns, because of course criminals are not going to register their illegally possessed guns. What makes such an idea even more ludicrous is that when a state government TRIED to enforce a law requiring criminals to register their guns (New Jersey as I recall), the SCOTUS ruled that the law was constitutionally invalid under the Fifth Amendment because it amounted to forcing a criminal to admit that he illegally had possession of a gun, which violates his right against self-incrimination.
What this means is that if, and I stress the "if" part, there were a nationwide law requiring the registration of all guns, or even just handguns, it would be a) constitutionally invalid under the Fifth Amendment; and b) would not accomplish anything by way of reducing crime or criminal possession of guns; and c) would give the government information on who has guns, how many, what kind and their serial numbers, which information, when collected (as in New Jersey) will (and has been) inevitably used to send out the jackbooted thugs (literally, as the New Jersey State Police wear jackboots) to seize firearms that have been arbitrarily banned (like semi-automatic "assault weapons" in New Jersey) from law abiding citizens who obediently register them on the orders of the state. And as it happens, that's
exactly what happened in New Jersey.
The Governor swore on his mother's grave that if residents registered their "semi-automatic assault weapons" for "safety purposes" that the ownership lists would NEVER BE USED to confiscate those weapons. He lied. Three years later, the state legislature outlawed that sort of weapon and out went the New Jersey State Police in their jackboots, with their guns (which include machine guns) and they seized thousands of those registered guns and demanded that the rest be turned in or taken out of New Jersey.
Exactly the same thing happened in California.
So guess what? No more gun registries, ever, anywhere. Government abused it's authority and so we revoke that authority and refuse to comply or obey
ever again. Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me. Fuck the jackbooted thugs, fuck the anti-gun assholes, and fuck gun registration.
It's not happenstance, for example, that in Colorado today, while private transfers (including loaning a gun to a friend while hunting) technically require a NICS background check, and all transfers at "gun shows" also require a NICS check, but the only permanent record of the transaction kept is the PAPER Form 4473.
Between July 2013 through February 2015, of the 512,028 NICS checks done on firearms transactions in Colorado, approximately 24,000 of them were "private transfers" mandated by the new law.
Supporters of the background check law point to Colorado Bureau of Investigation data showing that in the first year of the law, there were 68 denials for private sales after background checks were performed at gun shows and another 98 denials for private purchases outside gun shows.
Source
So, out of 24,000 transfers, both at gun shows and elsewhere, 166 denials resulted. That's 0.007 percent of all private transactions. More importantly, those denials were not because some hardened violent criminal was trying to illegally buy a gun, they were the result of honest mistakes by people who didn't know that a particular offense (like a sex offense) disqualified them, or perhaps they had a decades-old restraining order filed by a vindictive ex-wife or some other disqualifier that they didn't know about or had forgotten.
How do I know this? Because no actual violent criminal intent on obtaining a gun illegally for criminal purposes would submit to state and federal background checks in the first place, because
even attempting to buy a gun is a felony if you know you are disqualified or you intend to use it for criminal purposes.
Moreover, if you lie on the Form 4477, that's also a federal felony offense.
The most common of these, about 57 percent of the total were for 617,000 people who were “Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.”
Then comes a near three-way tie for second place for fugitives from justice, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence convictions, or those who answer ‘yes’ to the question of unlawful user of a controlled substance. Each of these amounted to about 100,000 individuals or roughly 10 percent of the total.
Source
So, in Colorado, 166 denials in 18 months, NONE of which were violent felons trying to get guns, and NONE of whom were prosecuted for attempting to purchase guns precisely because the state and federal governments know that trying to prosecute someone for making a mistake about their eligibility is a pointless waste of public resources. In fact, out of all of the millions and millions of gun transactions that have gone through the NICS, the federal government has prosecuted only FIVE people for being disqualified and attempting to buy a gun. Most of the denials are not final denials anyway (something the liberal Democrats won't admit) they are wrongful denials that are eventually reversed down the road. For example, if a person got divorced 10 years ago and a mutual restraining (no contact) order was issued because of the acrimonious nature of the proceedings by the judge
without any actual criminal violence occurring on either party's account, as is actually very, very common (some divorce judges issue such "restraining orders" as a matter of course in ALL divorce proceedings that are contested), and the individuals involved either didn't know or neglected to petition the court to rescind the order, the order technically remains in force even though the parties may now live at opposite ends of the country. But that order is enough to technically deny both parties their fundamental right to keep and bear arms so long as it is even technically still in force.
So, ten years after the divorce the husband wants to buy a shotgun to go duck hunting and in good faith goes to his buddy and offers to buy from him. They dutifully go to the gun store and fill out the paperwork for a private transfer and BINGO! the forgotten restraining order pops up and the transaction is denied and he becomes one of the 166 people the Democrat fuckwits imply are hardened criminals who shouldn't have a gun. So, being denied, he spends a couple of hundred, or thousand bucks going before a judge to get the order quashed, goes back to his buddy, goes through the whole pointless process once again and this time he gets his gun.
THAT is why people who are initially denied most often end up being able to buy a gun.
The number of transfers denied is available from the FBI,
but the number of denials that are finally overturned after appeal action is not available from the FBI because the FBI refuses to release those numbers. And why do they refuse to do so? An educated guess is that it's because they lose most appeal cases and the individual's right to buy a gun is restored. We know for example that there are 24,700 individuals who obtained a Unique Personal Identification Number (UPIN) because they have the same name and DOB as a disqualifed person, so we can assume that the FBI overturned 24,700 denials at a minimum.
If you were issued one hand gun for life it would be different. You could turn it in to the Feds if it no longer works and get a permit for a second. At your death the estate gets a big fine if the gun is not turned in.
It's not "the right to keep and bear one gun" it's "the right to keep and bear
arms (plural) shall not be infringed" and, as it applies to Colorado, “[t]he right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”
A very thorough examination of Colorado law regarding gun rights can be found
here.
It's interesting to note that the 2003 legislative action has not yet been applied in review of the "rational basis" test that has been upheld in Colorado, particularly when combined with the Heller and McDonald cases, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is (as the Colorado statute says) a fundamental right. This would arguably appear to render invalid all court rulings in Colorado, including the state Supreme Court, which use the "rational basis" test for determining if a statute interferes with either the federal or state right to keep and bear arms. It is nearly certain that, when a case comes up in which the question is pertinent, and it's defended properly by the right pro-gun attorneys, the "rational basis" test will inevitably be overturned and replaced with the "compelling need" or "strict scrutiny" test that anyone other than a liberal viewing the Colorado state constitution knows should apply.
What part of "“[t]he right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question" does not suggest that the state has to have more than a "rational basis" upon which to restrict the Colorado right to keep and bear arms?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
