DENIED

Author Direct | Saturday, September 14, 2002 | David Gallandro

[DGallandro]

Oh, one minor glaring inconsistency I forgot to add: My buddy is NOT: homicidal, suicidal, mentally deficient, emotionally disturbed, an addict, a drunk, a wife-beater, a vagrant, an "undesirable", a felon (or even a criminal of any kind for that matter), an illegal alien, or just plain abnormal. He is NONE of these things; Therefore, he is NOT the "wrong person" that a gun should not go to, supposedly.

Unless there is some kind of hidden criteria not being published upon which arbitrary denial is based.

[Blue Screen of Death]

If computers and operating systems were fool proof, I'd be looking for a new screen name. However, it seems everyone knows exactly what my screen name means. I wonder why.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Brady is about gun REGISTRATION. period. If it were about keeping felons from guns, the felons who have atually been stopped by this program would be prosecuted, but they never are.

Second, I know, for fact, that records are kept forever, and not the 1-6 months that the FBI claims they use for auditing purposes. They also provide access to this database to local law enforcement.

[Cultural Jihad]

We don't know. We have to call the proper authorities on Monday to find out.

You should have waited until Monday to find out why before writing your essay and posting it.

[Glenn]

Is there a restriction on the number of guns one purchased in a week's time, perhaps?

[taxed2death]

Maybe, there is now a (unspoken, unwritten) restriction on how many guns one can legally own. We must all fight terrorism.....I wonder what kind of "profile" the Gub-mint has on your buddy.
Hmmmmmmmmm, "already owns quite a collection of diverse firearms". Maybe by Gub-mint standards, he now owns "enough".

I own a .22 rifle that was given to my mom on her 12th birthday. That's the only firearm I own, it's fun to go plinkin' in my back yard. Maybe one day in the near future, that one firearm will be "one too many". Stranger things have happened.

[usconservative]

INCONSISTENCY NUMBER TWO: Denying my buddy his latest rifle would not have prevented him from killing anyone, or committing a "crime of passion" because he ALREADY OWNS enough hardware, personal and professional, to start a small war, should he ever have that bent.

I think herein lies the real problem. VPC will be able to "track" how many guns someone's purchased and if some bureaucrat thinks your friend (or you or I...) have purchased "too much" they'll just flip a switch in a system somewhere and DENY us any further purchases.

If your friend already owns enough to start a small war (hell, so do I --- care to make a few intro's? LOL!!!) someone somewhere knows, thanks to these systems.

This is just another incursion into our 2nd Amendment Rights, IMO.

[DGallandro]

You wrote:

You should have waited until Monday to find out why before writing your essay and posting it.

I disagree. It's not about WHY. It's about the fact that it was denied at all. Whatever reason they give does not excuse the violation of civil rights. Enough said. The attorney has been retained. The facts will come out in court.

DG

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Can you start a ping list to keep us posted on the outcome? We'll all be pullin' for you.

[Jack Black]

BLOAT.

[MonroeDNA]

Three thoughts:

First, why not buy the gun yourself, try it, and then if you don't like the looks of it or feel to it, sell it to whomever, even your friend. Keep your own records, or discard them, as you see fit. The system will have no record of your sale, unless when they knock on your door (and eventually they will), your records have details on the buyer. I personally once sold a rifle to a person at the range. He showed me his CCW license, and I sold it, though I don't remember his name.

The entire purpose of the "gunshow loophole" effort is to prevent transactions that can't be entered into the database. They want to know who owns what, but private sales prevent that. But private sales (as of today, anyway) are legal. They will stop at nothing to prevent private sales, becuase that makes their database invalid.

Second: No tin-foil hat for me, but I really beleve that there is an underground communist-led effort to undermine the US.

No country which freely has firearms in the hands of civillians has ever been taken over. Look at the Swiss.

They really want to take us over, and for that to happen, they must first confiscate guns.

First step is cataloging who has what. Next step is banning guns, one class at a time. It happened to Britain and Austrailia already. Perhaps you own a gun in the database which was not turned in? Next step is knocking at your door. Or maybe, not knocking. Ask the Jews in Germany in 1939.

It may take 20 years, or 50, or 100, but make no mistake, a well funded subversive group is patiently moving forward.

Third: Make no mistake, this site is monitored by F-troop (BATF). When you see gun threads, respond as you will, but don't ever list what you own. It goes into the database, too.

[KingKongCobra]

Here's a clue - many states are adopting the "one gun a month" type laws. Before you blather on all weekend, why not check into your local laws. The most important thing about gun ownership is responsibity. That includes knowing how to use your gun safely and knowing the local laws so that you don't do something stupid to endanger your rights (and mine).

[MonroeDNA]

"One gun a month" is the next step. Then "One gun every quarter" (after all, who needs more?) Then "one gun a year." Then "One gun."

Then, "No gun unles we say OK."

Then "No gun."

[MonroeDNA]

Here's another clue: The second ammendment, as written, says:

"Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please note the two commas that are NOT in the original "as approved" statement.

"One gun a month" is simply NOT constitutional.

[in the Arena]

bang!

[KingKongCobra]

I'm not arguing constitutionality. The original poster said "Why". I gave him an explanation.

[AppyPappy]

My buddy is NOT: homicidal, suicidal, mentally deficient, emotionally disturbed, an addict, a drunk, a wife-beater, a vagrant, an "undesirable", a felon (or even a criminal of any kind for that matter), an illegal alien, or just plain abnormal

Of course he is. He bought a gun at Walmart.

[AppyPappy]

"Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed the first time every month.

[stands2reason]

I don't.

signed, stands2reason on an imac