georg jetson
Regular Member
+1
Even further... no one should be denied their right to self defense by arms unless they are in the physical custody of the state.
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
- Thread starter ccwinstructor
- Start date
+1
Even further... no one should be denied their right to self defense by arms unless they are in the physical custody of the state.
zekester
Regular Member
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Bingo, that is the point we are making.
sraacke
Regular Member
Here's what I'm unclear on.
In Louisiana you have to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol from a FL dealer.
At 18 years old you can purchase a pistol via private sale or even be gifted a gun.
With uninversal background checks I'm assuming you'd have to make any private sales through a FFL dealer.
So... Would these private sales restrict sales to only those 21+ years old and leave out sales to persons who are 18-20 years old?
In Louisiana you have to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol from a FL dealer.
At 18 years old you can purchase a pistol via private sale or even be gifted a gun.
With uninversal background checks I'm assuming you'd have to make any private sales through a FFL dealer.
So... Would these private sales restrict sales to only those 21+ years old and leave out sales to persons who are 18-20 years old?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Even more important the families of these people are denied the right to protect their children. They are innocent of any crime and are being punished by these stupid laws that have no affect on crime.
I'm happy to see agreement on my disagreement with background checks and felony disenfranchisement. That term is technically for voting which was ruled constitutional but felony firearm disenfranchisement has only made it to the 7th circuit.
I was feeling alone here.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...resentatives&p=1881721&viewfull=1#post1881721
I was feeling alone here.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...resentatives&p=1881721&viewfull=1#post1881721
georg jetson
Regular Member
From the text found here...
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
‘‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after
20 the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of
21 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not li22
censed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered
23 semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is
24 not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer,
25 licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken
26 custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weap120
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 on for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon
2 taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault
3 weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of
4 this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grand
fathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s
6 inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
So the first question to answer is whether the pistol in question will be clasified as an "assault weapon". If the answer is "no" then a private sale is still ok.
If "yes" then this applies from above, "the licensee shall comply with all requirements of
this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grand
fathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s
inventory to the unlicensed transferee."
Last edited:
sraacke
Regular Member
Georg, that's the text for the "assault Weapon bill" but the main problem is they are talking "closing the gun show loophole" which is Universal Background Checks for all gun purchases. So if they word it the same way then when you transfer a gun in a private sale you'd have to go through a dealer and he'd have to process it like it was from his inventory which means....No sales to anyone under 21yo?
georg jetson
Regular Member
Yes Steve you're correct. Unfortunately, it's the only proposed bill that I can find actual text. Unless you have a link to a different bill introducing the "Universal Background Check", we are only speculating.
The text I posted is from the bill DiFi introduced. I was quit surprised to find that it requires "universal background checks" for the defined "grandfathered assault weapons", but includes no language pertaining to those they've left alone.
It's difficult at this point to know what will happen... broken crystal ball and wut not. Which bills get introduced, make it out of committee, the amendment process... who knows what the final bill/bills will look like.
There there Sharkey, you're not alone.