Posted on 09/14/2002 8:52:04 AM PDT by DGallandro
You never think it will happen to you, or somone you know. But you knew when the whole cockamamie "national instant check system with 3-day waiting period" was enacted, you had this nagging doubt in your mind, "What happens if these computers, powered by unstable operating systems, serviced and maintained by human beings, makes a mistake that affects an innocent man's life?"
The Brady Bunch at the VPC are crowing about how effective the instant check and 3-day waiting period is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and cutting down on "crimes of passion". But here are a few awful truths for you to choke on. I'm not citing statistics. I am citing a real-life experience that just happened to a friend who shall remain nameless (he is retaining an attorney as we speak, on a Saturday, so just bear with me please) who has purchased 2 firearms in the PAST WEEK, over the counter, form 4473 and all, with flying colors.
He strolled into the gun store to pick up another rifle (My buddy is a contractor...sometimes he's got good money, sometimes he's broke...this week was a good week) and got told...DENIED.
Keep in mind this is Mr. Joe Average Citizen. Never in trouble...used to wear a badge and a gun (security officer), already owns quite a collection of diverse firearms. DENIED? Why?
We don't know. We have to call the proper authorities on Monday to find out.
According to Brady, this would be another example of how their "effective system prevented a firearm from getting into the hands of the wrong person."
With only TWO major, glaring inconsistencies:
INCONSISTENCY NUMBER ONE: In the past week, my buddy has bought two other firearms, legally, on form 4473's..one of them from WAL MART...if this system is so effective, then WHY didn't they stop him THOSE TWO TIMES? Hmm, Ms Brady, you hypocritical liar? Answer me THAT one.
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. Which, I might add, he does not, nor does he even have the potential to. So the whole "waiting period to prevent crimes of passion" is complete hogwash. It's bullpucky. IT'S A LIE!
The day has come as I have feared, when a man's rights are subject to the whim of a computer, to be violated whenever an error occurs, in the name of "safety."
THIS DAY WAS TODAY. I am madder than hell, even though it wasn't my purchase, even though I'd have never bought the gun he did...not the point. The point is that the National Instant Check System, and Waiting Period does NOTHING to deter crime. NOTHING. What it does do, most effectively, is INFURIATE normal, honest citizens, subjecting their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to the "reasonable" restrictions imposed by...what? A Computer? A Complex algorithm of circumstances which, when met, may violate a man's rights without Due Process?
I don't THINK so. The truth is that waiting periods and background checks are no different than the "poll taxes" and the "literacy tests" so popular in the Deep South designed to keep Negroes (the term back then for black people) from voting. It was racism disguised as a "reasonable" restriction.
Now we have HARRASSMENT disguised as "reasonable" restriction. Ever wonder why a background check has to be done EVERY SINGLE TIME somone buys a gun? The glib answer given is "well, we don't know if the guy has committed a crime since the last time he bought a gun..." Does anyone else see the fallacy of that statement? THE LAST TIME HE BOUGHT A GUN means he ALREADY HAS ONE. Which means, WHY BOTHER? If he has already purchased one legally...it stands to reason he owns it. Where's the prevention of the crime of passion? Where is the prevention of a felon getting a gun? IT DOES NOT EXIST. So then, why have them? HARRASSMENT.
See, politicians know that it doesn't take very much to make exercising your rights unpopular. Make something just a little more difficult, in this case exercising your second amendment right, and fewer people will exercise that right. Socially ostracize anyone who owns a firearm, citing criminal misuse and lumping all people with firearms into the "criminal misuse" category. So now there's social basis for draconian legislation. So then the legislation passes, disguised as "reasonable restriction" which is honestly, NEITHER. It is neither reasonable (because it is Harrassment) nor restrictive (Because it's being enforced on people who ALREADY HAVE GUNS)
Enough asking why. We know why. What I would REALLY like to know is why people like you and I sat on our posteriors and let this kind of garbage be written into FEDERAL LAW.
Have you got an answer? I certainly don't. But make no mistake, my buddy has a case here...and right now he's got a couple grand to blow on a lawyer. SOMEBODY's gonna get sued...in Federal Civil Court.
I hope he wins. If he does, we're gonna open a gun shop with the money. That's right, I said WE...he's gonna be gracious enough to let me work for him so I don't have to be a starving writer anymore.
Thank you, Federal Legislation for having a patently unconstitutional law so that it could be enforced against my buddy. You are the lotto for us and you're going to make us RICH.
And by all rights you should.
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.
You should have waited until Monday to find out why before writing your essay and posting it.
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.
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
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.
"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.
Of course he is. He bought a gun at Walmart.
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.