Replies

The GCA of 68 was a reaction multiple events; Kennedy, Kennedy and King assassinations and the night rider shootings/Goodman, Schwerner, Cheney etc.

The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.

As to eliminating your right to buy directly from the manufacturer, rights are always is conflict.

Understand, if there were no conflicts between rights, there would be little need for laws. Fraud is illegal because my right to quiet enjoyment is in conflict with the scammer's right to free speech, even when that speech is a lie.

Disturbing the peace laws exist because my right to my quiet enjoyment of my home could be in conflict with my neighbor's right to stand on the edge of my property, 30 feet from my house and scream about his free speech rights at 3:00 AM.

Traffic laws exist because two drivers both have the right to freely engage in interstate commerce, but when they both try to do so at the same time at 70 mph within the same intersection, one westbound, the other southbound, we have problems.

I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.

I'm glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.

Quite frankly, with America under a domestic assault, when we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, when there are undoubtedly Muslim extremists moving in through our open borders, when we know there are Muslim extremist cells here already, --
-- It's unbelievable that the reaction is to restrict the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.
We need more armed citizens, not less.

Totally agree. When citizens are armed, crime goes down.

Mind-bending comment, - seeing that you admit both above and below that you are "-- glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level --"

I just see removing the loophole amateur FFLs as a way to (help, perhaps only a little) ensure only law abiding citizens have easy access to weapons through the retail purchasing distribution.
I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.

The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.

Not in California, according to their 'laws'.
-- Is it true that you support the idea States can make laws to that effect? --- Could you agree with this comment:

'--- Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --'

The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.

You cannot buy a New-In-Box (NIB) firearm from your neighbor, unless he/she/it is a Class 01 Federal Firearms Licensee...and that is definitely contrary to the Constitution (IMHO).

I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.

So because someone might do something illegal or crazy, you want to restrict everyone's right to do that thing? That is what is known as "prior restraint" and has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional in the 1st Amendment context. It is the equivalent of banning automobiles and liquor because some irresponsible bartender **may** give another drink to someone who's obviously drunk already, and that drunk **might** go out on the road and kill someone. Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. You could make the same argument for lots of household chemicals, but no one has because it would cause too much inconvenience. Same for gasoline - remember the Happy Land Social Club massacre in NYC in 1990? 87 people died because one sick guy bought some gasoline and misused it.

By the way, psychos and criminals can get guns pretty much anywhere - restricting access and availability only restricts the sane and law-abiding.