Prior to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, it does not appear juvenile, sealed records were being reported.

The Act has tried to address that. I doubt it has.

Thus, I believe the age to purchase should raise to 21. Give someone a few years 18-21 to generate an adult record.

Congressional Research Service below concerning the lack of juvenile record reporting. I’ll ask a KSP Sergeant about this Friday.

https://crsreports.congress.go...uct/pdf/IF/IF12154/2

I just called and asked what a transferable M16 goes for. $25,000.
That is going to take the dipshits out of picture, not the $200 stamp.
I can give you his number if you would like to tell him about the cheap class threes you know of.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I just called and asked what a transferable M16 goes for. $25,000.
That is going to take the dipshits out of picture, not the $200 stamp.
I can give you his number if you would like to tell him about the cheap class threes you know of.

And yet you still miss the point, with 10's of millions of ar-15s in the market, they would not command near that price.

Have you ever heard of supply and demand? You might read up on it sometime.

Quite a few things besides MG's are class III and they do not command tens of thousands of dollars, yet they are not used in crimes either.

The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

I think you need to read the 4473 much closer the next time. There are 13 questions related to your background and eligibility for owning a firearm.

I can post the newest version if you like. You are missing quite a few details in your understanding of the system. Do not feel bad, you are not the first guy to be in that situation.

I know there are more of them.

Also, incidentally, the last time I did a NFA transfer, they did an instant check as well… if the dang thing was sooo much more comprehensive, why repeat the ICS?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

Juvenile proceedings are not convictions by law.

They are adjudications. Juves in juve Court are not found guilty.

They are adjudicated of public offense that would be crimes if committed by adults.

Technically, when juves so engage it is not a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

Juvenile proceedings are not convictions by law.

They are adjudications. Juves in juve Court are not found guilty.

They are adjudicated of public offense that would be crimes if committed by adults.

Technically, when juves so engage it is not a crime.

Such adjudications should be disqualifying for buying a gun if they involved violent crimes.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

Juvenile proceedings are not convictions by law.

They are adjudications. Juves in juve Court are not found guilty.

They are adjudicated of public offense that would be crimes if committed by adults.

Technically, when juves so engage it is not a crime.

Such adjudications should be disqualifying for buying a gun if they involved violent crimes.

I am not saying yea or nay to that. I am telling you how a minor with what would be a felony (violent or not) can pass a background check at age 18-21. Hence, why I would raise the age to 21.

Or we need a Federal Law Mandating all states report. As we have seen, that is an issue. See below:

The Instant Background Check System is not universal either. Some states manage it themselves. While in other states the Feds do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes Jeffe,
I am saying very few crimes are committed with class III firearms which were purchased legally and the buyer has undergone an enhanced background check as required to obtain an NFA firearm.

You will always have illegal guns and the crimes committed by those in possession of them.

It appears to me the enhanced background checks usually stop NFA weapons from reaching the wrong hands, far more so than the standard NICS check.

Steve

I’m sure the same holds true for all legally obtained and held firearms.

The point, I think, is that the vast majority of gun using criminals are already barred from obtaining and holding firearms of any type legally.
So, it seems a matter of controlling the perp rather than the weapon.
Implement the current laws to the fullest extent and we would almost eliminate repeat offenders.
Make illegal activity actually hurt…

Never happen, lawyers would lose their repeat clients.....

.

Why didn't we have mass shootings prior to 1968 when you could buy a M1 Carbine through the mail with no background check?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbithabit:
Why didn't we have mass shootings prior to 1968 when you could buy a M1 Carbine through the mail with no background check?

For big ones over ten dead there were two, one in 1949 in New Jersey with a semi-auto pistol and the 1966 University of Texas shooting with some of everything. There were several after 1975 but never more than one per year until 2009. There have been 21 since then of that size.

If you look at shootings involving 4 or more killed, between 1982 and 2011 we averaged one every 200 days; between 2011 and 2014 it went to one every 64 days.

This year we're averaging just over one per day.

From April, and there's no reason to assume it's gone down...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

For some reason I thought it was a crime of domestic violence. Perhaps skb will post the form.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
From April, and there's no reason to assume it's gone down...

Jeff watching fox news????

Fox is only correct when Jeff wants it to be.......


.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

For some reason I thought it was a crime of domestic violence. Perhaps skb will post the form.

Here you go:




Questions 21 A-N are the sections pertinent to our discussion.

The questions relate to DM, felony convictions, drug use, residency, involuntary institutionalization etc.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The 4473 says ever been convicted of a crime of violence and regular or habitual use of drugs.

Both were told they were ineligible persons.

For some reason I thought it was a crime of domestic violence. Perhaps skb will post the form.

Misdemeanor Assault against a domestic protected class is a bar per Fed law and some states. If you are subject to an EPO/DVO/IPO that is a bar per Fed law.


However, post Bruen across the US those restrictions are falling in the lower Fed Courts.
A few are pending at the S. Ct., now.

All felony convictions post different fates for handguns vd long guns is a bar per Fed law.

That is also going down across the country; even bf Bruen

Correct, with the help of Justice Thomas, soon wife beaters, felons and others currently prohibited from possessing firearms will likely be legally allowed to in the future.

No unintended consequences likely either(that would be sarcasm for those of you not able to grasp it).

Lots of trades people here are bowhunters. Ah, the mistakes of youth.

skb, you are switching the topic. I never said a thing about semi auto AR15's.
It was brought up that legal class three weapons have no record of being wrongly used. You said it was the background check. Doc Butler said the cost plays a big part.
You then took it the $200 stamp, wouldnt stop anything.
Doc, and I have been trying to get it through the cost of a legal class three, means it is not your run of the mill gang banger buying them.
You only want to talk about AR 15's now, not what we were trying to discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
skb, you are switching the topic. I never said a thing about semi auto AR15's.
It was brought up that legal class three weapons have no record of being wrongly used. You said it was the background check. Doc Butler said the cost plays a big part.
You then took it the $200 stamp, wouldnt stop anything.
Doc, and I have been trying to get it through the cost of a legal class three, means it is not your run of the mill gang banger buying them.
You only want to talk about AR 15's now, not what we were trying to discuss.

Maybe you should read the whole thread?

Several of us have been discussing adding AR-15s to the NFA list. Yes, the cost of full auto transferable MG's is sky high, they are not the only NFA firearms, others cost much less.

Notice the point Doc Butler brought up(unintentionally I believe) about juvenile records being picked up in the more thorough BG check but not in a NICS check. The more thorough vetting picks up items the NICS check does not.

It could be a combination of things preventing owners of legal class III firearms from committing crimes. I feel the enhanced BG check catching some of them before they acquire firearms is one of those reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Correct, with the help of Justice Thomas, soon wife beaters, felons and others currently prohibited from possessing firearms will likely be legally allowed to in the future.

No unintended consequences likely either(that would be sarcasm for those of you not able to grasp it).

Unintended consequences is the language of Dobbs another majority will use to send this issue back to the states as the Founders intended.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbithabit:
Why didn't we have mass shootings prior to 1968 when you could buy a M1 Carbine through the mail with no background check?

Well, we did.
The St. Valentine's Day massacre readily comes to mind.
By today's count standard, there were many during the '20s and '30s and many cases of familicide during the Great Depression.

One thing that is conspicuously absent from this conversation is the high rate of perps either on or recently off psychoactive medication - that's a more common thread between mass murderers than anything else.
We just happen to have a much more commonly and heavily medicated population today than in any other time in history.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by rabbithabit:
Why didn't we have mass shootings prior to 1968 when you could buy a M1 Carbine through the mail with no background check?

Well, we did.
The St. Valentine's Day massacre readily comes to mind.
By today's count standard, there were many during the '20s and '30s and many cases of familicide during the Great Depression.

One thing that is conspicuously absent from this conversation is the high rate of perps either on or recently off psychoactive medication - that's a more common thread between mass murderers than anything else.
We just happen to have a much more commonly and heavily medicated population today than in any other time in history.

A very valid point on the drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
From April, and there's no reason to assume it's gone down...

Jeff watching fox news????

Fox is only correct when Jeff wants it to be.......


.

Fox News is like a blind hog, that lies.

I called the ATF and had a chat with one of the two agents in my state.
The difference between a NICS check and a class three, is the top LEO in the district of the applicant is given a heads up on the application.
So if there is knowledge of issues that have not been to court yet, he can recommend a no.
So enhanced background ..... sort of.

I looked on wikipedia for mass shootings in the 60's and 70's and there was at least one a year. I think five was the most for a year. No school shootings. Sometimes it would show the type of weapon used. One black ex-military sniper used a Ruger 44 carbine. I had forgotten about four Dallas cops being kidnapped and killed.
Ar's were available in the 60's and none of the killers used an AR.

quote:

No school shootings.

I suppose you mean primary schools.

But, the University of Texas mass shooting happened in 1966.

15 killed with sporting arms.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

George Washington, First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790

Compliments of George Washington Society
~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm pretty sure President Washington is saying- by any means possible. What's missing is training. Used to be firearms training and discipline in public schools.

Now they teach about fantasy genders, hurt feelings and sports.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

George Washington, First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790

Compliments of George Washington Society
~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm pretty sure President Washington is saying- by any means possible. What's missing is training. Used to be firearms training and discipline in public schools.

Now they teach about fantasy genders, hurt feelings and sports.

Hear hear!

But the left has no use for men like George…a far right extremist.

Don’t forget he also owned slaves.

That quote also directly tying the right to regulated military service. They would be the organization state militia service.

It does not support a Feds Right to individual possession.

The quote is clear that Washington saw the 2nd Amendment as a restriction on the Fed Government, with possession tied to uniform service to the state.

Let us assume this misinterpretation of the quote is what he thinks. He has no more authority on the issue than anyone else. The Supreme a court was clear from 1836 onward.

Go read the cases. The Supreme Court decides and not the President or former President.

Now, that is academic because the elite clearly ties the right to uniform service which when he said it would be the state militia.

quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed…

Leave it to Joshua (and maybe some early 19th century Justices ) to get it wrong.

In the phrase above, “only” is the key word of Washington’s intended meaning.

Meaning he believed that not “only” should the individual people be armed…but that they should too couple that with the willingness to come together as a disciplined militia to ensure their freedom.

quote:

but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require

Right there big man. Can you not see the word “requisite” after “uniform” and “well-digested.”

Do much for your critical thinking skills.

Oh, and the cars cooktop the original intent.

However, you are just going to keep lying at this point.

You amen what you do not understand; even when it is written in plain English.

It is much like your understanding of the Gospels. Actually, you intentionally distort them too.

Washington used and not or between uniform and well-digested. That means both requisite conditions on the possession of firearms have to be satisfied. Otherwise, he would have said or.

Do you not see the condition of “but disciplined.”

Washington was a Federalist. He appointed Marshall who created the controlling caselaw in City of Baltimore v Barron that restricted, correctly, the application of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government.

That is not bad law. Justice Scalia a bench made legal doctrine and a bench made right to self defense he identified at common law to go around on result but not overturn the rational of the prior cases.

Washington was also fearful of a Standing Fed Army, and believed in the states military system. Thus, he would agree the Ged Government could not disarm a state, but a state could regulate onto itself arms.

Hence the words; but disciplined, requisite, uniform, and well-digested plan” as limitations upon possession.

quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed,

That he made this sentence first…means that the people being armed was an absolute given in his mind.

but disciplined;

Dedicated (a synonym) to ensuring freedom. Disciplined is commonly used to mean dedicated.

to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;

A phrase meaning willingness to serve. Requisite, as used by buy old-English speaking people, did not necessarily mean required but more like compulsory. Like: “Hey, I want to hunt a buffalo with that guide rifle I found for you. PH’s answer: “That is requisite!”

and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Meaning this should be totally in private hands and not a State’s action.

And he doubles down.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed,

That he made this sentence first…means that the people being armed was an absolute given in his mind.

but disciplined;

Dedicated (a synonym) to ensuring freedom. Disciplined is commonly used to mean dedicated.

to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;

A phrase meaning willingness to serve. Requisite, as used by buy old-English speaking people, did not necessarily mean required but more like compulsory. Like: “Hey, I want to hunt a buffalo with that guide rifle I found for you. PH’s answer: “That is requisite!”

and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Meaning this should be totally in private hands and not a State’s action.

And he doubles down.

The language of the times!!!!

I noticed neither of you can challenge Washington’s actual words.

So much for Texas reading comprehension.

If he meant willingness he would have said so. He applied limitations understood in his time to be compulsory state militia service. His words are words of express limitation: “requisite,” “disciplined”“uniform” AND well-digested plan.

The State provided the “disciplined,” “uniform” AND “well-digested plan.” His words mirror the 2nd Amendment which was not seriously debated by the S. Ct., as being nothing but a “mere restriction” upon the Federal Government from disarming the states. Again, Ho read the cases. Your opinion is meaningless. It is also historically, legally false.

Again, it is obvious in the case law, you two refuse to read and just spit out what you want it to be.

You have provide no authority for the things you wrote in red. They are your false opinion. I have provided chapter and versus the caselaw that defined the original intent of the 2nd. caselaw Justice Scalia did not say was wrong. Justice Scalia merely uses a bench made doctrine “ Selective Incorporation” through the 14th Amendment of the “Due Process” to incorporate a right to arms in common use held for legal purposes against the states. To do this, his specifically found the common law right to self-defense to be a fundamental right. Like marriage between consenting adults was found by the Court all the way back in 1967.

You are not a fool. You are just dishonest.

It is just laughable. The “strict constructionists” morph into “interpretationists” when necessary. The bottom line with Lane . . . the ends justify the means . . . even if you have to resort to hypocrisy.

quote:

interpretationists

Looks very plainly written to me.

The first and last sentences tell it all.

"A free people ought not only to be armed………their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

He clearly believed the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right that should be guaranteed.

Seeing it otherwise is obtuse.

You know what I was typing.

Rebut what I have stated with something more then your lies about what the original intent of the Second is.

Of course, you cannot bc the original intent was known by Washington and stated plainly and provided to us in ever S. Ct., from 1836-McDonald.

Go ahead, cite an authority (a Supreme Court Case$ that says the original intent of the 2nd was to guarantee an individual a Federally protected right to posses a firearm.

It does not exist. Heller and McDonald do not say that. They say we are using a bench made legal theory, that starts to be developed in 1937, being Selective Incorporation” through the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Process” to incorporate a right to arms in common use held for legal purposes against the states. To do this, his specifically found the common law right to self-defense to be a fundamental right. A bench made fundamental right like marriage between consenting adults was found by the Court all the way back in 1967.

I’ll wait for you to produce a case prior the the Incorporation Doctrine that says any of the 8 Bill of Rights apply as restrictions to the states.

I know there are 10. If you read the list of cases provided at the beginning, you would know why I say 8.