Posted on 05/16/2010 11:23:11 AM PDT by rellimpank
Juan Cardona-Marquez can't legally buy a gun. He can't shoot one. He can't even touch one without committing a crime.
So how was it that the 22-year-old Milwaukee man - who threatened his girlfriend and was later charged with armed robbery and a string of burglaries - was able to rent a .45-caliber Glock handgun from Badger Guns and practice his aim on the store's shooting range?
The answer lies in a little-known quirk of federal gun laws.
Gun stores must check the criminal background of anyone buying a gun. But no check is required if someone rents a gun to use on the store's shooting range. In fact, a background check is not even allowed for rentals.
Prosecutors say a felon or other person legally barred from having a gun is breaking the law by handling one and could be charged. But they need proof.
"They can go and play with a gun, handle it, fire it, even take pictures with it to intimidate other people and nobody is going to know about it," said Joseph J. Vince Jr., a retired supervisor from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"If they have the gun in the store or out of the store, it is a danger to the public."
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Did you wet your pants?
They should be required to keep spare pants too, for those like you.
.
Whoops! Correction: Turns out to be plain old rain...Whew! That was close...
OK just band all Obama voters.
I’ve been shooting for decades, so yes, I know they can’t legally leave the shooting range with the gun. But that leaves more opportunity for mischief than I think is necessary. What is the problem with telling a crazy person or felon you can’t rent a gun? Why are you so determined to vindicate the right of a crazy person or a felon to rent a gun?
And how will the range be checking them without telling the federales their names? (Actually there is a way this could be done if we really need a NICS system, but they won’t do it)
Why are you so determined to make it more difficult for sane people to rent a gun? Why are you trying to solve what amounts to a statistically non-existent problem by restricting all of our rights?
I can answer that for you. It’s because ‘moderates’ like you are really nothing more than the fascist wing of the Republican party. You want everyone to be ‘safe’, just like the Democrats. But your solutions are ‘less radical’ than the eeevil Democrat ones, while still looking out for our ‘safety’.
In actuality, a ‘less radical’ jack-booted thug is still a jack-booted thug.
Well, more like a Jack Loafered Thug. Much less tyrannical.
Jack Loafered Thuggery(tm)! Now with 28% less tyranny! Get yours today!
ROFL!!!
< rimshot > Try the veal, it’s great! I’ll be here all week!
$hit happens . Live with it !
They check my name every time I buy a gun. I have no objection to changing the way it’s done to make it less obtrusive. Like I’ve said in my earlier posts, if they were going to do a background check on people who rent guns, they WOULD have to change the way they do them, because you can’t get an instant check under the current system.
My point here is that the whole thread is premised upon the notion that a felon ought not be subject to a background check, and a lot of posters seem to be standing up for the right of a felon to rent a gun without being subjected to a background check. That is just plain crazy. And when they try to turn it around and say they are standing up for the right of law abiding sane people to rent a gun without a background check, they just look foolish. This can be done quickly, easily, with no violation of privacy. There is no legitimate reason that anyone has offered so far for why it should not be done.
Heck, as I stated before, the gun range itself was complaining that it could not do an instant background check. They don’t want to rent guns to nuts either.
If I ran a gun shop and wanted to rent guns, I would make rentals contingent upon joining a “club” wherein they are checked using whatever means necessary to insure they are legally allowed to own a gun. After the check is complete, they are issued a card, and then they can rent a firearm for range use.
Renting firearms to anyone that walks in the door just seems like a recipe for trouble.
No, they're not. They're standing up the for the rights of the sane people, and if a few kooks slip through the cracks, better that than invading the privacy of the other 99.99%.
This can be done quickly, easily, with no violation of privacy. There is no legitimate reason that anyone has offered so far for why it should not be done.
It CAN, they choose no to revamp the system in such a way that the users' names are NEVER in the possession of the feral government, despite the fact that they're prohibited by law from keeping records of the names. If they won't do that, it makes them look like they're lying. Plus we have to trust them with information. What would you say the odds are of the government NEVER, NEVER misusing information once it's in their grubby statist little hands? And, yes I did state (quite clearly I thought) why this was a bad idea.
“Law abiding gun owners do not benefit from letting crazies and felons have guns.”
I’m not defending the guy but who gets to say whether a person is a mental defect? According to the libs gun owners are mental defects. And I wouldn’t trust the NRA to defend your rights either.
If they've been Baker Acted, that is a pretty good sign. Or if they've been convicted of a felony.
I agree it would need revamping, but the whole idea of doing a background check for gun rentals would involve revamping because you can’t get an instant background check right now, period.
“Why are you so determined to make it more difficult for sane people to rent a gun?”
My philosophy is similar to the NRA’s. Do the simple things to reduce gun crime that don’t put a significant burden on law-abiding gun owners, and that will reduce the pressure from the leftists to take more draconian actions. Denying a felon or a court-declared insane person (Baker Act) the right to buy or rent a gun is a simple thing that does not imping upon my rights.
If you are that worried about it, don't go to the range. Or the grocery store, movie theater, restaurant or bar. Prohibited persons are armed in all those places.
And I don’t see what the civil liberties issue is, assuming that it could be done quickly.
Shall not be infringed" is pretty easy to understand and it's a Constitutional right, not a "civil" anything.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).
A version is on a plaque on the Statute of Liberty. "“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.