Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No background check needed to fire gun on range (barf alert)
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 16 may 10 | John Diedrich

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-132 next last
To: Still Thinking

The pressure from the left will never go away completely. But it does diminish somewhat if you do the commonsense things, and that makes it easier to defend the rights of the law-abiding citizen.


61 posted on 05/16/2010 2:01:37 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The NRA is in favor of most gun control, they just want it enacted in smaller pieces than HCI. http://www.nrawol.net/

The NICS checks are unconstitutional on many levels and need to be abolished. God given, constitutionally protected rights can not be subject to prior restraint. Background checks do nothing but harass law abiding gun owners. It is the obligation of all freedom loving citizens to try to get this system overturned.


62 posted on 05/16/2010 2:04:25 PM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

“you even make the laughable assertion that you are a gun owner yourself”

Actually, I own four guns now. Got plenty of ammo too. I was at the range on Thursday evening. To give you an idea how nuts your assertion that a gun owner would not have my views actually is, consider that my views are right in line with the NRA’s policy of doing commonsense stuff to prevent felons and mental cases from having guns. The NRA wrote the law on that, in fact. So are you telling me that the NRA consists entirely of leftwing nuts who don’t own guns?


63 posted on 05/16/2010 2:08:14 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
My view is colored by the fact that I think we let felons off far too easy as it is.

I agree there, and I think that's where we attack the issue, not by denying those who did serve their time their rights. I think the latter is un-American.

64 posted on 05/16/2010 2:14:39 PM PDT by Dan Nunn (Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise. -The Great One)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
if you do the commonsense things

And you say I don't know you...

65 posted on 05/16/2010 2:15:25 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to prohibit any citizen, including felons from owning firearms? At best it's a state issue.

Once a person is released from custody/probation/parole they are a free citizen and are supposed to have all rights of citizenship restored. They have paid their debt to society and have a right to firearm ownership regardless of what the government thinks. Ben Franklin said it best (although I am paraphrasing) “no free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”

“Shall not be infringed” actually means something, and it doesn't mean that “common sense” or “reasonable” restrictions are OK.

If I were a member of congress I would introduce a bill to require a NICS check on anyone who wishes to register to vote, then watch the libs tap dance their way around why a background check is OK for one right and not for another. After all, it's also illegal for a felon to vote in federal elections.

66 posted on 05/16/2010 2:16:17 PM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

They don’t want Cops enforcing immigration laws but they want gun ranges to do checks on shooters. Too much pot does strange things to people.


67 posted on 05/16/2010 2:17:25 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (We are an Oligarchy now and worse if we fail. TeaParty On...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dayman

“Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to prohibit any citizen, including felons from owning firearms? At best it’s a state issue.”

When you’re a convicted felon, you lose a lot of your civil rights. It’s not just your 2d Amendment rights that are forfeited. Same with the Baker Act. The whole purpose of the Baker Act is to provide a mechanism where a court determines that you are so insane that they need to lock you up. If you’re so insane that they can lock you up, then you’re insane enough that they can take your guns.


68 posted on 05/16/2010 2:22:03 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If you were for Rudolph William Louis Giuliani AKA 9/11
gun grabber as another poster said, I would never trust
any statement from you.
69 posted on 05/16/2010 2:22:49 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dan Nunn

Serving your time is only part of the penalty for being a felon.


70 posted on 05/16/2010 2:23:25 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Serving your time is only part of the penalty for being a felon.

That's only a recent development. Last hundred years or so. And even if it's Constitutional and necessary, as it's part of a criminal penalty, it's a state matter, not one for the feds to poke their nose into.

71 posted on 05/16/2010 2:26:36 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Actually, I was for Romney, but that’s a pretty meaningless test you’ve set up, given the pathetic choices we were given. Who did you support?


72 posted on 05/16/2010 2:27:42 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

As long as there are federal felonies, I don’t think that it’s purely a state matter, but it really doesn’t matter for the purpose of this argument whether it’s a state or a federal issue. We’re arguing about the policy in general. The question of whether to do it at the state or the federal level only comes into play if you decide it should be done.


73 posted on 05/16/2010 2:31:03 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
You support Willard Myth Romney! LOL

I was for Duncan Hunter.

I voted for Sarah and it killed my soul that it was McCain.

74 posted on 05/16/2010 2:32:36 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Even though he was worthless, we all had to vote for McCain if the alternative was the Messiah. In retrospect, though, it may have worked out for the best—assuming that the voters hand the Dems their head in November. There is no question that this would not be happening if McCain had won.


75 posted on 05/16/2010 2:37:08 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

>Why don’t they worry about incoming asteroids.

Asteroid -> Rhyme with Steroid
Anabolic -> Starts with ‘A’ just like Asteroid
Anabolic Steroid -> Illegal Drug
People who use drugs -> Victims of fate and/or society
Victims of fate and/or society -> Protected Class.

Therefore, Asteroids are a protected class and need to be helped and understood rather than feared.

{At least that’s my guess.}


76 posted on 05/16/2010 2:46:24 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Even though he was worthless, we all had to vote for McCain if the alternative was the Messiah. In retrospect, though, it may have worked out for the best—assuming that the voters hand the Dems their head in November. There is no question that this would not be happening if McCain had won.

True enough, but neither would we have had Obamacare. I hope the rout in November is emphatic enough that O-care can be repealed, and the R's that get elected to Congress remember WHY they got elected and don't turn into RINO's the moment they enter the District.

77 posted on 05/16/2010 2:48:06 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm; Brilliant

Well said perfect storm, if I could I would post the two hands clapping for your great statement.


78 posted on 05/16/2010 2:48:54 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: calex59

79 posted on 05/16/2010 2:49:47 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Thank you:)


80 posted on 05/16/2010 2:52:29 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson