• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Turning Gun Owners Into Felons

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
A new bill would make it a crime to “transfer” your gun to a spouse for more than seven days.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel


A great article that needs to be passed along. Link it, email it, get it to as many as you can. People don't know what is in this "common sense" background check bill. They don't know most of the language comes from Bloomberg's group. They don't realize the true real life everyday consequences of it.

The media keeps reporting there is overwhelming support for it, but no one I know supports it. Schumer calls this legislation the "sweet spot" of all the proposed legislation, read the article and see why he's so sweet on it.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support. While President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg talk about “gun sales,” the actual legislation moving through Congress aims to regulate far more than sales. It would turn almost every gun owner into a felon. The trick is that the language under consideration applies not only to sales but also to “transfers,” which are defined to include innocent activities such as letting your spouse borrow your gun for a few hours.



From the lack of response, it seems that most must be fine with the this legislation.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Well it might help if the bill was actually being debated currently or on the floor. While it is something to keep one's eye on and good to know about, it's kinda hard to go on about a bill that isn't even up for debate yet (kinda like all the times various people put up threads about standard capacity magazine bans that never even made it to the floor).
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I would like to thank you for the article link.

Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:


"Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support."


Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
I would like to thank you for the article link.

Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:





Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.

I would love to see these polls the media keeps hypeing. I would like to see the actual questions, as asked and how large of a sampling was taken and from were. The keep saying the majority of gun owners support it, yet the real world evidence I have seen greatly disputes this claim. If the majority of those polled came from urban and metropolitan areas I don't think they would necessarily reflect the opinions of those outside those areas.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I haven't seen the poll question yet, but I'd bet money it looks like this:

Do you agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill by requiring background checks before all firearm sales?

The false premise of the question cries out for yeses from the uninformed.

This is how the question should be phrased to represent reality:

Considering that background checks do NOT keep firearms out of the hands of those who would unlawfully use them, do you think they should be expanded to cover all transactions, including those between family and friends?

That question's premises would evoke a huge majority of nos.

With all the misinformation in the press about the efficacy of background checks, even a simple question asking if one supports "universal background checks" will be typically answered yes based solely on the explicit assumption from the first question that would be implicit in this question.

The only proper way to ask the question would be to predicate it with a lot of information about what background checks have accomplished (or not accomplished) and what the costs to those involved would be. Were it done in that way, no would honestly and decisively win.

However, the purpose of these polls is not to sense how the public feel. They are to direct how the public feel.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Well it might help if the bill was actually being debated currently or on the floor. While it is something to keep one's eye on and good to know about, it's kinda hard to go on about a bill that isn't even up for debate yet (kinda like all the times various people put up threads about standard capacity magazine bans that never even made it to the floor).


You mean this bill that could get a vote as soon as Thursday?


http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-gun-vote-thursday_716174.html


The more people stick their heads in the sand, the better position their posterior is in for what the antis want to do to us.
 
Last edited:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
I would like to thank you for the article link.

Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:





Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.


Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ate-Bill-649-(The-Universal-background-check)


I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states

SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

The very next section defines transfers.

The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
Perhaps because the assault on liberty is on so many fronts its impossible to comment or see them all.

Kind of occupied with Operation Vengeance in Colorado - remove the treasonous sponsors and supporters of the Unconstitutional Acts recently passed by our legislature on party line votes, without any sort of public debate allowed. The thousand plus people that showed up to be heard were all silenced by the Democrats limiting testimony time to just enough for their own side which had little support.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ate-Bill-649-(The-Universal-background-check)


I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states



The very next section defines transfers.

The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.



Thanks for linking me up. do you have your pipe in your hand? Put this in your pipe, and smoke it:
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ``(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren; ``(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law; ``(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--


Oh my goodness, what's this! We can gift it to our spouse, children, etc. People read these bills before you go spouting off trash like this:
A new bill would make it a crime to “transfer” your gun to a spouse for more than seven days.

So, either the author the OP'r quoted is a lying sack of sh*t, or they don't know how to read a Bill; you decide for yourself.


Beretta92FSLady +1

Boneheads who believe the OP's quote offered -1
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I would love to see these polls the media keeps hypeing. I would like to see the actual questions, as asked and how large of a sampling was taken and from were. The keep saying the majority of gun owners support it, yet the real world evidence I have seen greatly disputes this claim. If the majority of those polled came from urban and metropolitan areas I don't think they would necessarily reflect the opinions of those outside those areas.

Please, show us your so-called 'real world evidence.' If you mean Anecdotal, well, you can take your 'real world evidence' and call it whatever you like, but at the end of the day, it's worth less than diddly.

The Pro-Firearm movement resonates with me. The BS, made-up fear-mongering nonsense is, well, better suited in it's proper place, the FOX News Limpbaugh gutter trash, bottom feeding trench where the lowest common denominator of Conservatives reside.

Firearm issues are made political by both sides, and I suppose, being many thousands of comments deep into this place, I should accept that both sides are nothing more than bonafide jackasses.

Really, this thread must be a satire thread. It ought to be in the Social Lounge, where satire threads are birthed to go down in a fiery blaze.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
You mean this bill that could get a vote as soon as Thursday?


http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-gun-vote-thursday_716174.html


The more people stick their heads in the sand, the better position their posterior is in for what the antis want to do to us.

Oh you mean the bill as discussed here? The most important thing to take out of this is that the vote Thursday will be for cloture, which is to try and move past a filibuster and simply allows for debate on the bill to move forward. After that the bill will still need to be debated and then the actual bill can be voted on.

And I haven't stuck my head in the sand on this, but this still has a ways to go before it can even get to the house for a vote (assuming they would even be willing to take up the bill to vote on it).
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ate-Bill-649-(The-Universal-background-check)


I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states



The very next section defines transfers.

The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.

Many of the examples in the article are a real possibility. What's not pointed out is the complicated nature of the bill. Indeed the new law may "allow" certain exceptions, but considering the risk, they're rendered irrelevant. It will have a paralyzing effect.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Many of the examples in the article are a real possibility. What's not pointed out is the complicated nature of the bill. Indeed the new law may "allow" certain exceptions, but considering the risk, they're rendered irrelevant. It will have a paralyzing effect.


Agreed, the nature of the bill is complicated. It will have a paralyzing effect?--do you have access to more information than we?

Right-fringe fodder, period.

People, let's be level-headed here. Let's take a balanced approach here, and not get worked up over little notions that formulate in articles, in bills, in your heads. If I only had the ability to bottle fear, I would be a trillionaire.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
A balanced approach? Care to elaborate? It seems I've heard that phrase somewhere...

Left fringe fodder perhaps.

Let's keep my reference to a "balanced approach" in context, friend.

I'm talking about consuming fear-mongering trash, like the link offered by the OP, making claims that are flat-out lies.

I acknowledge that President Obama is anti-Firearm. I acknowledge that there are Senators, and House members that want to push a Universal Background Check Bill. But let's not get scooped up in fringe right-wing fear-mongering BS here, nonsense about what's been quoted in the OP, that's a flat-out LIE! It's not a half truth, it's not an almost truth, it's a LIE.

My only conclusion is that it's appealing to the lowest common denominator of the fringe right...or could it be something else.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Normally I would take it to heart... that the author of an article has lied. However, in this case I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake. A small mistake considering that most of the examples in the article are valid.

In your case however, your inconsistencies betray you.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Normally I would take it to heart... that the author of an article has lied. However, in this case I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake. A small mistake considering that most of the examples in the article are valid.

In your case however, your inconsistencies betray you.

I appreciate your acknowledgment that it's a mistake.

Don't try to sugar it up, the author either made a mistake or is a lying sack of sh*t.


My goal is to be inconsistent...i like to keep you guessing:p
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Thanks for linking me up. do you have your pipe in your hand? Put this in your pipe, and smoke it:


Oh my goodness, what's this! We can gift it to our spouse, children, etc. People read these bills before you go spouting off trash like this:

So, either the author the OP'r quoted is a lying sack of sh*t, or they don't know how to read a Bill; you decide for yourself.


Beretta92FSLady +1

Boneheads who believe the OP's quote offered -1


Yes, a person could gift a firearm to their spouse, they however could not loan(i.e. temporarily transfer) them a firearm for more than seven(7) days and the firearm can not leave their property. This is the point the author was making.

``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--


``(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs
between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee,
if--
``(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs
in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
``(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or
curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
``(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7
days; and


It is also worth noting that at this time, you could not even gift a gun to your wife as your marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government. I don't know the State laws were you live, but here in MO such a gift would be perfectly legal as the law stands now. And so you don't think I made the whole "loan" thing up.


3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
``(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or
consignment, or other disposition; and
``(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm
for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective
transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
The only thing I need to know about this bill is that it violates the second amendment. Considering this is a firearms board, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do certain people not understand?
 
Top