Why don’t we crack down on drug smugglers and drug dealers first, and after we get that working, then maybe we can crack down on junk lawsuits.
I don’t accept the premise that allowing me to sell my legal property has any effect on crime. If I sell a car to a human smuggle am I responsible if the thief uses the car in a smuggling ring?
Liberals, raise taxes, fund welfare and restrict guns. Guns are at the base of your freedoms. Why give that up.
I’m more afraid of Barack Obama and his government czars and appointees than I am of criminals, the “mentally ill” and illegal aliens.
Criminals and nut cases you can deal with on a one to one basis, but the government is everywhere 24/7 and on your case all the time.
Obama is the biggest criminal in our history. He and his minions are the ones I’m really afraid of.
An attack on private property.
This article highlights the need to rescind all laws pertaining to gun ownership and sale/transfer. The only crime involving a gun should be an existing crime aided by the use of a gun.
Only committing a crime should be a crime. Gun laws should be rescinded.
Right and wrong is measured by your behavior and should not be consigned to whether or not you own or are holding on your person a gun.
EXACTLY.
And if EVERY STATE IN THE UNION had gun show laws like California, that ELSEWHERE would be MEXICO, HONDURAS, etc. and the ONLY people getting guns THEN would BE THE CRIMINALS because Lousenberg, Bloomberg, et al DO NOT BELIEVE CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS and they would add THIS law to the ALREADY ONEROUS Federal and State regulations to effectuate that end.
“Meanwhile, nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements,”
They mean private sales between individuals, here. By including the term nonprofessional, they exclude FFLs. All FFLs must transact each sale/purchase the same way, with paperwork, whether the firearm is new or not. In most states, there is a limit to how many firearms one can sell before that individual becomes a “professional”, and maybe a fed requirement I’ve forgotten.
A “nonprofessional”, which covers just about anyone not an FFL holder, can give away a firearm to anyone with no Fed involvement (though many states regulate private sales with record keeping and permits).
They want to go after private sales and especially inheritance of firearms. Once all transactions go through government, true enforcement of ownership begins.
No, more fundamentally, it would restrict my ability to sell my property without government intervention, or to purchase said property of another without government intervention. Sounds like an infringement to me.
...their intent is solely to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
Hmmmm. Think maybe thieves, robbers, and others of criminal ilk might not get their arms the old fashioned way--STEAL THEM?
When the 4473 is filled out and the NICS check goes through, the only 'guarantee' we have that the data isn't being filed in a database is the word of politicians.
The same larcenous bastards who can at will and under force of arms remove an increasing amount of money from the public coffers and use it to purchase favors, enrich their families, and attract kickbacks and bribes while evading prosecution for their acts by using their position to garner de facto immunity from prosecution.
We're supposed to believe them?
Though the gun lobby raises a hue and cry whenever such proposals arise, it has yet to explain why it wants to make it easy for murderers, armed robbers and other criminals to obtain the tools of their trade.
Why don't you ask the judges who let these same multiple offenders and others go with a slap on the wrist? Instead, the apparent gambit is to make criminals of the generally law-abiding in an effort to deflect attention from the abject failure of the New York authorities to handle their own crime problem.
I suggest to Mr. Bloomberg, that if we wanted to live in New York, either the city or the state, we would.
In the absence of a stampede to reside within those borders, I'd say we have, for the most part decided not to live under the onerous laws there, and not of criminal intent, but desire to remain as free as possible.
I find it fascinating that private investigators can so freely cross state lines to suborn felonies, have the evidence recorded, and not be subject to prosecution, much less the ringleader of the entire operation, Mr. Bloomberg himself.
If someone wants a gun they will get a gun. The only variable is price.
That's not quite how it goes down. The buyer implies that he or she might not qualify, not that they're a felon or mental patient. At that point it's the private seller's judgment call. What Bloomberg's "investigators" found themselves able to do was talk a seller into the deal where there was a carefully-stated element of doubt.
This isn't, as I've stated before, a move to make gun shows safer. It's a move to require all private purchases to undergo background checks, which records constitute an illegal back-door registration. These people know what they're doing and they don't mind lying to get what they want.
Hardware stores are thought to be a key supplier of tools used in crimes. No background check to buy a crowbar. Should we close them?
The key word here is CRIME. It's not the tool, it's the fool. People who want to kill and rob will find a way to do so.