More mass shootings

[Bob_Church 7]

Hooknswoop

I agree with all that. I would gladly trade legal open carry for concealed carry without a permit.

I woiluld also support a ban on any future sales of bump stocks.

Derek V

West Virginia has gone concealed carry for anyone over 21 who can legally own a gun. Ohio still has the permit system, though it's a pretty easy one to get, but it does leave you registered that way.
Ohio used to be incredibly hard to get a concealed carry permit in. A friend went to work in the prison system and had to attend firearm training. The first thing the instructor told them was that "no, this will not get you a concealed carry permit and no I can't do anything to help you. Please Don't Ask." Rick says you could tell he was tired of answering those questions. In Bando, Burmese Kickboxing a couple of the really serious guys were trying to get bodyguard licenses so that they could use those to get concealed carry permits.
But then, one ruling later and we went from a few percentage of people eligible for the permits to only a few that can't get them.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Hooknswoop

Quote

So why go to the trouble?

I can’t say a firearm has saved me, but it did save my wallet once.

I’ve never needed a seatbelt, AAD, airbag, smoke detector, fire extinguisher, or for at least 20 years, a spare tire. So why go through all the trouble for any of these just in case items? Self reliance I suppose.

I have answered your questions. Here’s one for you. You mentioned giving an inch. What happens when they outlaw your 12 guage? I mean, you don’t need a 12 guage for home defense. A 16 guage would work and less risk to neighbors.

Derek V

Good question. My answer is simple: I would rely on what would then be a more reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. I'm cool with being well regulated. I am also cool with someone pointing out that automatic weapons are not the same as muskets. I also think my constitutional right to keep and bear arms will survive examination of my totally sweet, you need to get one, Beretta Tactical. I think there is a lot of camels nose under the tent freaking out going on by those who will not give an inch and that's a big part of the problem.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

That is already illegal. Colorado passed a universal background check law. Several poster here, including billvon, were sure that the law would be enforceable. Want to guess how many people have been prosecuted in the last 5 years?

Boiling a frog.

Derek V

The easy solution to that would actually be funding the enforcement. Which is not happening either. And fund it with a fee that the gun purchase has to pay.

Does not work anyway if a single state does it and others do not.

but this in only part of the solution. If the law was funded, gun transfers and sales were actually recorded, and there was a 1-5 year jail term and felony waiting for you if you sold a gun to someone outside the process... I expect that most, if not the vast majority of people would follow that process.

Just like they stop their car at red lights and crosswalks. Because people are actually being paid to watch the process. It is enforceable because we DECIDE to enforce it and we FUND the enforcement one way or the other. The gun laws are so watered down, that who could bother?

Why would any law enforcement agency track a seemingly perfectly legal gun sale or transfer between private parties anyway? Under current law, that is allowed so arguably there is no reason for suspicion.

If the law was funded properly, the transfer would have to take place through a background check, through an LEO, and it would never happen if the gun was going to be transferred to someone not eligible to possess a gun

And if the original owner knew that all transfers are being recorded, then they could assume that this gun would eventually be tracked back to them and they would be part of that chain of liability with some 'splaining to do.

That would be called 'writing effective laws' and then funding the enforcement of them.

The reason you still get shit ass spam calls on your phone when there are laws against it? It is because they gutted the money to enforce it.

[Hooknswoop 19]

It isn’t about funding the Colorado universal firearm background check law. This law didn’t really change anything. Selling to a known felon was already illegal. The people selling and buying knew they were breaking the law already.

People selling to someone they didn’t know were already getting the background checks done.

People selling a firearm to a friend were not breaking the law, but now would have to do a background check, or be breaking a new law. They don’t bother. Why? Because why? Not going to get caught and since both people can legally own firearms, law enforcement doesn’t care if they got a background check done or not.

Dumb law that didn’t actually change anything. That is why no one is being charged under it.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

>People selling a firearm to a friend were not breaking the law, but now would have to do a
>background check, or be breaking a new law. They don’t bother. Why? Because why? Not
> going to get caught .. . .

Exactly. And if that changed, they'd start doing the background checks. Because they don't want to go to jail.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Exactly. And if that changed, they'd start doing the background checks. Because they don't want to go to jail.

And the only way that would change so that they would get caught is with a regristry. Without that, they can’t get caught (that is what I mean by unenforceable).

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Exactly. And if that changed, they'd start doing the background checks. Because they don't want to go to jail.

And the only way that would change so that they would get caught is with a regristry. Without that, they can’t get caught (that is what I mean by unenforceable).

Derek V

I posted this awhile back but I don't know if you saw it. It's one thing to say "keep a registry." It's another to get any useful information from that law.

Coolville gunshop .pdf

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

And the only way that would change so that they would get caught is with a regristry. Without that, they can’t get caught (that is what I mean by unenforceable).

Judge: Officer, can you tell the court what you did on the evening of May 24th?
Officer: I put a "wanted" notice on Craigslist for a weapon.
Judge: What was the response to the ad?
Officer: John Smith emailed me and said he could sell me his Glock 29.
Judge: Did you then proceed to Mr. Smith's office and buy the Glock 29?
Officer: Yes.
Judge: Did Mr. Smith perform a background check as mandated under HB 13-1229?
Officer: No.

[Hooknswoop 19]

In my example, it was 2 people that know each other. In your example, a ring operation, it is 2 people that don’t know each other.

1- They could,have conducted this sting operation without the background check law. So nothing changed.

2- You should come to Colorado and show the law enforcement community how to do their jobs.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

>1- They could,have conducted this sting operation without the background check law.
>So nothing changed.

Before the law - Mr. Smith would not go to jail.
After the law - Mr. Smith would go to jail.

That is a change.

>2- You should come to Colorado and show the law enforcement community how to do their jobs.

And you should go to Westminster and tell the family of the 13 year old who was just killed in a road-rage incident that you don't really give a shit about their dead son, as long as you don't have to change anything related to your guns.

(equally asinine)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

After the law - Mr. Smith would go to jail.

Then why aren’t Mr Smith’s going to jail?

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

"And you should go to Westminster and tell the family of the 13 year old who was just killed in a road-rage incident that you don't really give a shit about their dead son, as long as you don't have to change anything related to your guns. "

That's about as cheap as it gets.

It doesn't even make sense.

[rushmc 23]

you guys are god-damned amazing! Why would you want anybody to publicly State all the weapons they have and set themselves up for being robbed or worse?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JoeWeber 2,720]

rushmc

you guys are god-damned amazing! Why would you want anybody to publicly State all the weapons they have and set themselves up for being robbed or worse?

I also have a couple of expensive skydiving rigs, a bottle of 40 year old Glenfarclas with only a few drams consumed, a few pairs of expensive sunglasses and framed piece of priceless art. (attached)

And don't forget: a Beretta 1301 Tactical loaded with buckshot.

[billvon 2,991]

>Then why aren’t Mr Smith’s going to jail?

Because they decided not to enforce it.

If no one pulled over drunk drivers, and no one did checkpoints, no drunk drivers would go to jail. You might decide therefore that laws against drunk drivers were "unenforceable" - but there is a difference between "unenforceable" and "can't be bothered to enforce it."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Because they decided not to enforce it.

Well of course, but why did they chose not to enforce it? By “they”, I mean the entire Colorado law enforcement men and women.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

>Well of course, but why did they chose not to enforce it?

Thank you for confirming that it is enforceable, and they are just choosing not to enforce it.

As to why? I assume not enough money, which is the reason for most lack of enforcement.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>Well of course, but why did they chose not to enforce it?

Thank you for confirming that it is enforceable, and they are just choosing not to enforce it.

I do not believe it is enforceable. I asked the question that way in order to avoid that part of discussion and try to keep moving forward.

Why would it cost more money?

If universal background checks are so important and effective at saving lives, why wouldn’t law enforcement move money from somewhere else?

Derek V

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

And you should go to Westminster and tell the family of the 13 year old who was just killed in a road-rage incident that you don't really give a shit about their dead son, as long as you don't have to change anything related to your guns.

(equally asinine)

Did the shooter buy the gun without a required background check?

Would a background check have denied him that gun?

Apparently he had passed a background check to get a marijuana license. I have no clue what that would do as far as legally obtaining a gun.

People are currently calling for 'background checks'.

In the past it was "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines". Or 'cop killer bullets'. Or 'Saturday Night Specials".

Or some other sort of 'boogeyman' that having a ban or law in place would seem to solve all the problems.

I don't know how to solve the problems. As someone (DanG?) put it a number of pages back, knowing a lot about guns and gun laws doesn't give me any expertise in solving this problem.
But I do know that I can't see anything in any of the current proposals that will have any real effect on gun violence.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,991]

>I do not believe it is enforceable.

OK. Still progress; you once claimed that I "admitted it was unenforceable" (which of course wasn't true) - now you are backing off to you don't "believe it is enforceable."

>Why would it cost more money?

Same reason drunk driving checkpoints cost money. Salaries, vehicles, gas etc etc.

>If universal background checks are so important and effective at saving lives, why
>wouldn’t law enforcement move money from somewhere else?

Because people like you do everything you can to make sure it is not enforced, so you can claim "see? It doesn't work!"

Imagine a democratic governor in California allowing concealed carry without a permit, as long as you submit a simple form to the local firearms office. Then they don't open any firearms offices. After a year, the governor proclaims "concealed carry is a failure! There were no applications for it, so we are ending the program. No one wants it."

Would that be an accurate assessment?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Because people like you do everything you can to make sure it is not enforced, so you can claim "see? It doesn't work!"

How can ‘people like me’, influence law enforcement to not enforce a law? Especially if they believe doing so would save lives?

Derek V

[jcd11235 0]

Hooknswoop

You keep saying I am wrong and not explaining how I am wrong.

I said you were using faulty logic. No one has provided enough specific relevant information regarding the hypothetical situations to determine if you are wrong.

No one had provided any scenario that demonstrates background check requirements to be necessarily unenforceable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Hooknswoop

Why would it cost more money?

Most any time you increase required duties, labor costs increase. That's just basic economics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bob_Church 7]

What is this background check? Who carries it out and what is it intended to accomplish? I don't mean more vague things like "prevent gun violence" I mean specifically. What would it check for that would make Colorado safer?

[billvon 2,991]

>What is this background check?

A check to see if the purchaser is a criminal.

>Who carries it out and what is it intended to accomplish?

The seller carries it out using the Firearms InstaCheck Unit, a Colorado state service.