In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short

All your blaming and disparaging others reminds me of someone...hey, you are not unlike our President and his always finding fault in others as a reason he was kept from some great accomplishment or doing something...anything useful.

Your statement does make my question about the domicile firearms storage law germane. Storage is relevant if the orientation allowed possession. See you are a plethora of information!! I hadn't known of his personal acquisition attempt of any firearms, I assumed his mother may have acquired them from an FFL dealer (maybe a gift?).

Why was he refused? He wasn't prosecuted because of the timeline proximity(?) to his murderous rampage. He broke the law(?) trying to acquire a firearm, right-was he arrested? Obviously, It now seems a 100% certainty that background checks did not and could not stop Sandy Hook.

As diligent as...what, who? There you go again....had she locked the safe? Could the combo be changed by the owner herself (assuming Mrs. Lanza owned the safe)? How much did the safe weigh? Was it secured to the structure? What were the last 24, 48 hours like in the Lanza household? Have my reasons for asking these questions. OR could she had pursued something, anything like a mental health solution IF she had an inkling of what her son could do. To disparage her gun safe habits or procedures (if you are) you must certainly know more.

Perhaps another law...about gun safes in a domicile can be regulated, inspected and certified by the authority having jurisdiction? Maybe every American home and associated structure(s) could be inspected for safes and arms? Would this stop mass shootings or should the pursuit of solutions directly address the root cause of these shootings? As you've pointed out the Background check didn't/couldn't stop it. Is it a firearms safe solution we should look for? Or a mental health and a security fix for the individuals we care for, are responsible for and to and those we prize and value?

 

Are we now a team Dado ?

See your acting like the government, make laws that are not used to prosecute the criminal, why do you not want to prosecute the felon who hoodwinked a nice person simply selling their private property? And why do you want to imprison an American exercising his property rights? If you sold a firearm to your best friend and she went home and shot her husband (you never saw it coming/she never complained/they had an ideal marriage) with that very firearm what should you be charged with? What crime did you just commit? You hoping that the government could prove that you knew when you did not?

And if the seller did not know? I think you underestimate the investigative skill & talents of our LEO's. You are a small and punitive-minded person. You see everyone as a criminal.

Once Again;

How about we have a national background check on the People (everyone) who are of age to exercise their Second Amendment right? Issue a card or note on their driver's license that the holder of this card has no firearms disability and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Put the names/info of those who cannot purchase a firearm on the www accessible by all citizens. You present your card as proof you're one of the good guys, no record is kept nor phone calls made and you are on your way. The firearm is possessed by the good guy and the government has no record that can be used later...win/win baby!!!!!

You can't go for this because you care very little about the rights of American citizens. You simply want them relieved of their property and rights. Quit being deceptive about your goals and desired methods and we'll do much better as a team.

 

guys you cant argue with dado his entire premise is that all gun owners are criminals. he says it often enough.

 

That isn't their job. The government already passed what everyone thought would be adequate gun check laws in the 90's.

Your question might be better directed at the government.

Why haven't existing gun check laws been better enforced?

 

So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user… And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.

So, if every possible aspect of acquisition, possession, transport, transfer of a firearm by criminals demands harsh and swift punishment under existing law, what is it that Emanuel, Bloomberg and President Obama really want?

To criminalize—then prosecute—everything that we do as law-abiding, peaceable citizens who own and use firearms.

I want to ask a favor. Copy this column and give it to people in the media and to politicians. Put them on notice that their ignorance of law, feigned or real, and their unwillingness to push for prosecution of real criminals using existing federal law cannot be tolerated—EVER! Otherwise these agenda-driven politicians are complicit in criminal violence.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/wayne-lapierre-not-enforcing-existing-gun-laws-thats-a-crime/

 

ibidem

 

To what end? Don't know how to use google?

- - - Updated - - -

Flinging what? You lost this one 6 pages back.

 

As your inability to focus is not my issue.

If you'll check the title and OP this is not about how people store firearms. So, your question is not germane, relevant, or on topic.

If you want to discuss firearm storage start thread.

 

I point out that the problem with the current law is that it is difficult to prosecute under current law because, absent a sting operation, the police cannot know the intent of the seller and point out the proposed legislation would remove that barrier because selling the gun without the check is the crime and you turn around and ask what if the seller doesn't know?

Can you possibly think past the end of a bulldog revolver?

 

There is nothing to stop the firearms industry from self regulation, except, maybe, it would mean selling fewer weapons.

As has been explained the criminal portions of the current background check laws are nearly impossible to enforce because the laws as they exist forbid collecting the very data that would make prosecution possible.

 

BS, they are not being enforced because they are not being enforced. When a known felon lies on the form to buy a gun, you have it in black and white but these crimes are not being prosecuted. Lying on the form is a felony.

 

Have to agree with you. DADO-A often comes across as a self-serving single-tracked disingenuous gun control bent mini-minister of disinformation spewing a hate laced diatribe against centuries-old American liberties and eternal God-given rights in personal homage to History's First Deceiver and Saul Alinsky's patron anti-saint (and now- inhale )...well ok that or he's just a really confused media-parroting kid. .

Hey, better he entertains himself visiting the boards rather than playing those violent video games.

Though I'd appreciate his attempt to dismantle my suggested compromise on universal background checks by having every single American (and legal resident), when they are of age to buy firearms, being issued an ID that states they are not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This ID is then presented, no paperwork, no phone call-take your purchase home and the government is none the wiser. These would truly be universal by having everyone investigated/screened. What isn't for a pinko lefty progressive to love ? WIN/WIN BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Go ahead.

Prove the felon knew he was ineligible.
Prove the felon understood the form.
Prove the felon read the entire form.

Really. Go ahead.

 

Go ahead
prove guns are designed to kill
Prove knives were not designed to kill
prove it's not the intent of the user
Really go ahead hehehehe it ain't sticking buckoo

 

Prove to a felon that he knew he/she was a felon? Really? LOL

The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 .S.C. §§ 921 et. seq. , are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.


11c Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)

I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. (straw purchase) if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.

You ever hear of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

 

That's right you want data. May I zee your papers? Dado is revealing...soon he will shout from the basketball court like Happy Jason Collins (sp?) his true nature. A would-be confiscator of rights and firearms!! Darn pesky Constitution getting in the way.

Meanwhile President Obama was and is directly responsible for millions and millions of firearm sales since November, 2008. He has his admin agencies buying up and hoarding ammo. This guy has single-handedly made the firearms industry one of the most secure businesses in the USA today Baby!

 

In America we don't have a problem with law, the problem is there are to many lawsssssss (most gun laws go unenforced). If a bad guy dupes Joe citizen the bad guy committed the crime. YOU want to make a criminal out of the citizen because he owns a firearm. I strongly suspect that you are a firearms and Second Amendment hater. Why not come out and admit it. Confession is good for the soul Dado.

 

If you insist:

http://firearmspedia.com/maximum-effective-range/


"The Russians are the worst at this. They measure how far the bullet will travel under absolutely favorable conditions and they then assign that number to their guns (they call this the “killing range”). What’s wrong with this? Well, the bullet would have lost most of it’s velocity by the time it reaches the end of it’s flight, so it certainly can’t be expected to kill anyone if it’s just kisses your T-shirt and drops to the ground. In fact, most bullets would have slowed down below killing speed before they reach the mid-way point."

That's one of your's discussing gun design.

Knives?

Cake knife

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&....12.img.5MlockrpeHM#biv=i|8;d|Sxvvu-ncfM8wsM:

Butter Knife
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...12.img.ttNdYgG8KE4#biv=i|27;d|hAu2TLgwvxA0ZM:

Need I go on?

 

I note you left out the content of question 11b.

You know the one that requires the person to know sentencing law and the options available to a judge. Not just felons, misdemeanors that can be sentenced to more than a year, people not convicted but charged with a crime that could be sentenced for more than a year.

You're trying to prove that a person, willingly submitting to a background check, fully understands that any past conviction, even one overturned, even where rights are restored, is grounds for disqualification and the mere application is a crime.

The evidence says you'll have a very hard time making that case and, absent additional evidence (as in a sting) a competent prosecutor isn't going to try.

 

you don't have a clue about the law.
the definition of a felony is a sentence of over 1 year a misdemeanor is under 1 year..
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559
If you have not be convicted and only charged you are not sentenced to anything and are eligible to buy a gun
If a conviction has been overturned you are now considered innocent and all rights restored so you can buy a gun.
once again you have proven you have no clue.

 

I do I do. Please provide proof I'm begging.

Whoops you missed a part.....I love you cherry pickers eh, you make me laugh out loud.

Whaaaat hit the target? OH and just where was the civilian use of said weapon mentioned? I suspect it wasn't in you article eh? I also suspect you need to provide proof that manufacturers design weapons to kill for civilians as this is what you are purporting to regulate eh?

talk about someone making your entire point for you....thanks Dado...A soldiers use of a weapon is to win in a deadly force encounter therefore the INTENT of the SOLDIER is to kill, the weapon is one of many tools at their disposal....as is a knife. You don't actually understand what you post eh?

Military use now after spanking you on the intent of the military.....please find and enlighten me on civilian use eh.

Intent of user just like firearms keep trying, something might stick in the future eh

Intent of user just like firearms keep trying, something might stick in the future eh (google much?)

Intent of user just like firearms keep trying, something might stick in the future eh

Yes please....until you can actually get something to stick eh

 

Don't mean to burst your bubble, but the article you quote has to do with soldiers using guns, who ARE looking to kill people, unless they are practicing killing people. Not quite the same as civilians killing targets.

 

You may want to actually read the form.

If you have been convicted of a felony or an crime where a judge could sentence you to more than 1 year AND if you are currently under charges where the sentence can be more than 1 year.

Problem is that the prosecutor has to prove, in court, what the offender knew when he signed the form.

A near impossibility.

 

Your response is intelligible. Try again.

Proof was provided by one of your own that firearms are designed to kill. Do you really think the military is practicing for fun?

Please.

You remind me of the 3 year old hiding a cookie behind his back then claiming he got it for "daddy."

Except your not so cute.

 

Any crime that is over a year is a felony. and no a prosecutor does not have to prove that the person read the form if you signed it you read it if you signed it you know that you where not eligible. just as the prosecutor does not have to prove the person is so stupid that they dont know they have spent a year in jail.
your theory baslicy reads like this
Judge: did you sign the paper work saying you have not been found guilty of a crime that has had you in jail for over a a year.
Criminal yes your honor I did but I didn't know that i was not able to buy a gun.
Judge: So where have you been for the last year
Criminal: jail
see how easy that was.
your grasping trying very very hard to blame everyone for the criminals activities but the criminal.
the current laws are not enforced, these new laws would do nothing but make criminals out of honest people
Oh that's right you believe that anyone that own a gun is a criminal and supports terrorism
I did make a mistake about being under charges. but if you are found not guilty or if a conviction is over turned you can buy a gun.