https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/politics/ralph-northam-signs-gun-bills/index.html -background checks for ALL gun purchases. -one gun purchase per month limit. -red flag laws. this is a very good beginning. Hopefully they will soon also ban high-capacity magazines.
Law enforcement for the state of Virginia has already stated that they will not be enforcing any new firearm-related restrictions. Therefore, without enforcement, what was passed amounts to absolutely nothing. And as the state of Virginia has no firearms registration, the background check requirement simply cannot be enforced, even if law enforcement was willing to attempt enforcement.
Of the end of freedom, hopefully they are appealed and overturned. Another useless feel good law to satisfy the anti-gunners.
None of which has provided a measurable benefit to the state of California, which has all of the above and much more. Their levels of firearm-related violence and crime are still continuing unabated.
Of course there are. Do you want someone with a violent criminal conviction to get a gun? And what if they could get a gun legally? That would be a loophole. If you need to call it something else whatever, it's not going to change the facts on the ground.
Neither of those exist, gun show buyers are required to go through the same procedures as in shop buyers have to go through and online buyers have to have their purchases shipped to FFL and follow the same regulations. You are totally misinformed as to how guns are transferred in the U.S.
Demonstrate such to be the case. What one may or may not want ultimately has no bearing on what is reality. If such an individual wants to have a firearm, they will ultimately gain access to a firearm. The only way to actually prevent such is to confine such an individual to the appropriate facility for the duration of their natural lives. Then such would ultimately mean the hypothetical individual in question was not actually convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense. Thus meaning it would be perfectly legal for them to own a firearm, in accordance with federal law. With the facts being that there are no loopholes. Either a firearm is acquired in a legal manner, or an illegal manner. If the individual attempting to acquire a firearm has a felony conviction, there are no circumstances under which their acquisition and subsequent possession of a firearm would be legal. A felon even inquiring about where they can acquire a firearm can be prosecuted for attempted possession of a firearm.
Guaranteed a spike in 80% build kit orders in VA the instant the law goes into effect. VA just created a lot of hobbiest gunsmiths.
Is it that so? Tell me, if a private seller sells a gun, and it winds up in the hands of a criminal, who is at fault? Thank you for demonstrating such a case. Good job. Yeah that sounds like a loophole to me. The point of a loophole is to commit a crime legally. Can every private seller reasonably be held to the same standards?
It is the fault of the criminal. The case being that there are no so-called "loopholes" when it comes to the acquisition of firearms. Simply because a crime can be physically committed, does not mean the law declaring the action illegal is lacking. There is simply no way of any law, regardless of how it is written, serving to physically prevent a crime from being committed. How is the above a so-called "loophole"? Explain such. The criminal, a convicted felon, cannot legally purchase, or otherwise possess, a firearm under any circumstances. For them to even touch a firearm is to commit a felony offense under united states law. A felon who inquires about where to acquire a firearm can be prosecuted for attempted possession of a firearm. http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-...recognized-as-an-offense-under-wisconsin-law/
Why? Doesn't that sound like an infringement on the right to sell arms, or what about between private sellers? Or what about runners? They buy a gun legally, and can find a way to sell it illegally? Who is at fault then? Why? Why only the criminal? Your logic prohibits you from that claim. Either there are no loopholes, or there is a loophole here. You can't get your 1.) Yes, yes there are. Social engineering. 2.) Social engineer laws. We can change laws to make it so they can't financially benefit from a crime, like lying about a robbery. For example, require people keep guns locked up and failure to securely lock guns results in jail time. 1.)Wisconsin is not federal law. 2.) And who said anything about private sellers being smart about it?
Both the the seller and they buyer because the seller made a choice to sell a firearm to a prohibited person and the prohibited person made the choice to buy one from the seller.
I'm sure that you know the answer to that question as well as anyone. The ultimate goal of these hypocritical hoplophobes is to disarm all law abiding citizens except their paid bodyguards so that the criminal element who also supports "gun control" can ply their trade with minimal risk. Yes, violent criminals love gun control laws since an armed citizenry poses an occupational hazard to rapists, muggers, home invaders etc. For centuries, real Virginians do not and never have supported disarming the law abiding social element. It has only been due to Virginia's recent infestation of Carpet Baggers and decades old meddling of out-of-state Billionaires that these feel-good-do-nothing gun laws were passed by an all Democrat State government. Ironically, most of the skyrocketing number of current gun buyers are first time gun buyers who probably supported the Bloomberg-Northam gun laws. With the advent of the corona virus and possibility of social unrest they suddenly seem to realize that "When seconds count, the police are only minutes/hours away." In other words, there is likely to be much less grass roots support for more gun laws next year. Of two things you can be sure. the Bloomberg-Northam gun laws will do nothing to reduce violent crime and next year the same come-here Carpet Baggers & out-of-state Billionaires will be back to further eviscerate our most endangered Constitutional right.
As I understand the new gun laws, people with a concealed weapons permit are exempt from the one gun per month.. Also, the BATF also will issue what is called a C&R License (C&R means "Curio & Relic") especially for collectors who can buy firearms through the mail. I believe that the license is about $30- for 5 years and there a wide range of firearms that fall under the C&R category. I hope that answers your question & welcome to this forum.
If an individual purchases firearms for the express purpose of forwarding them onto known criminals, then the seller is at fault. But such is not the same thing as a private individual selling a firearm in a private manner. For the simple reason that of the two parties, the private individual selling the firearm, and the convicted criminal who cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm, it is only the criminal individual who has been stripped of their constitutional rights through due process of law, by having been convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense. Of the two parties, the unknowing seller could be considered a victim of a crime, since they are not only being deprived of their private property, but also whatever financial gain they were seeking to gain from the transaction, as they will not legally be able to keep the money they received. There are no so-called "loopholes" in the acquisition of a firearm. Either the acquisition is of a legal nature, or it is of an illegal nature. There is no third option, no in-between, no legal gray and ambiguous area. It is either legal or illegal, and such is ultimately the long and the short of the matter. There is no excuse for a citizen of the united states to be ignorant of such facts. Then why are crimes still committed so readily, without a second thought? Who is benefiting in the above hypothetical, and how is the benefit occurring? Such was already ruled unconstitutional by the united state supreme court in the Heller decision. Government cannot legally compel private citizens to keep their firearms stored in such a manner. Therefore what is being proposed on the part of yourself is a legal impossibility. And yet the attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, is still a prosecutable felony offense. Exactly what relevance to the discussion does such have? Explain such.
