http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2012/...ive-holder-petitions-calling-for-gun-control/ They are at it again, trying to cloose the 'loop hole'. Do these guys realize that if they got thier ideas turned into law in 2009, they still would have been shot in 2010?
I think most will say that folks with mental disorders, a history of violent aggression, past violent convictions, should probably not have guns. What is dumb, is the waiting period. Why do we have to wait 10 days if we already own a gun? That is asinine and non-sensical.
I didnt know what the "loophole" talk about is, didnt much care. I went with my spouse to a gunshow and kind of (very) impulsively bought this tiny thing called a "NAA mini revolver'. Mostly because it is cute, but i thought I could carry it so easily when my "ladysmith" is kind of heavy and big. Anyway, I just bought it same as if it were a book or anything. Seems like some criminal could do the same with no back ground check at all. I dont see how that is in anyone's interests for it to be legal that way. i wonder why its like that? Why does anyone oppose a law to fill out same forms and do same checking at this table but not that one at a show?
The problem is what exactly the definition of "mentally stable" is. Sure, I have no problem if the crazies and repeat violent criminals were not allowed to own guns. But what about the other ordinary people that have just made a few little mistakes in their life. Do they not have the right to have a guns too, for sport and self-defense?
It is a mistake to think it is just at gun shows. They are trying to close down personal sales within a State. Most States allow you to sell your gun to someone else in the State with a few caveats, such as that if you cannot sell to someone that you know is a felon. Most people I know record their sales just to protect themselves and require a driver's license and some require to see a carry license to make the sale. I doubt the feds could pass a law on this so it would have to be up to each State and I don't see that happening any time soon. Of course criminals have no problem breaking any law so "closing the loophole" will do nothing to them except to make illegal what they are doing illegally already.
I'm quite sure there already is one. Go to talk to your local doctor and they can probably give you a legal definition.
Colorado has closed the gun show loophole, and interpersonal sales have not been restricted. The Slippery Slope Fallacy need not apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
How retarted. So now the state has to come up with about a half million to implement it and all you have to do is walk off campus to sell your gun as a private seller.
You are moving the goal posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts Your argument went from closing the gunshow loophole leading to the prohibition of private sales, to what was posted above. They state does not need to come with anything to implement it, the sellers at the gun show simply call NICS like any other dealer. I still fail to see the problem with requiring background checks at gun shows.
if the seller doesn't have a federal license to sell at retail, the forms are completely greek to them.
Is a women that is paranoid mentally unfit to own a gun? Probably not. Should it be considered in the equation, of course. So again I ask the question, do you think it is unreasonable to restrict gun ownership only to the mentally stable? Would you sell a gun to a guy who repeatedly sad to himself when not spoken to; "must kill self. must kill self. must kill self"?
The only problem, which could easily be corrected, is that you must have a valid FFL# in order to conduct a NICS background check.
Sorry but the State has already said how much it will probably cost in it's fiscal impact. I was low.
Then the seller walks over to the table next to him and asks the FFL dealer to do it. Its not that hard.
It is a feel good issue with no impact to private sales other than more cost to the State and to individuals trying to sell their personal guns at gun shows.
