Getting a gun in DC

[KBCraig]

imported post

One thing that had me scratching my head was the dealer charging an extra fee to transfer it to the DC dealer. It wasn't shipped: the DC dealer went and picked it up. An FFL-to-FFL transfer is faster and simpler, involving less paperwork and no phone calls to NICS.

Of course, it's really not all that puzzling: every FFL within driving distance of DC knows they have DC buyers over a barrel.

 

[TatankaGap]

imported post

What a poor shmo! I'm glad he sold his gun - he was assigned to do this, found a new hobby but clearly is not strong and steady - I would not want to be his neighbor knowing he was armed with a gun.

Then again, I don't want to be neighbors with anyone who is not sure that they would rather defend their lives and families compared with giving themselves up for the slaughter.

Everyone at some point faces whether to be willing to kill in self-defense. Obviously, Gandhi and Mother Theresa expressed that they would rather die and have less karma than fight and/or kill in self-defense. Yet, it was also Gandhi who wrote that the most compassionate thing to do with a mad dog is to put it down - send it back because to let it live is to prolong its suffering. So, even Gandhi who wouldn't kill in self-defense, would kill in the name of compassion to end suffering -

This article reminds me of the coarse wisdom in the admittedly silly puppet satire film "Team America" - at the end, the conclusion is that there are three types of people, Pusses, D*ks and Aholes. [* I've cleaned this up best I can but it's worth stating in some fashion - so here goes....]

Aholes are the ones who are haters or are seeking to inflict violence on innocent people; jihadists, etc. Pusses are those like the journalist who wrote the WP article and are wondering if they would rather just let themselves be killed - they are into the philosophy of the matter without much real-world attachment to their own lives or the lives of their children. D*ks are those who are willing to take the hard line approach to self-defense, defense of family, community and nation - they don't mind taking on the Pusses or the Aholes if either are in their path to safety.

If you carry lawfully, you are a D*k. Pusses don't like D*ks because we're willing to be responsible for our own safety and that of our families. Aholes don't like D*ks because we will resist violent attack violently. Aholes like to take advantage of Pusses and bully them and Pusses don't seem to mind. Problem is that Pusses and Aholes all want all D*ks to be Pusses and we won't and so we have a schism. :shock:

Too bad there's no NICS check to see if a gun buyer is a Puss or an Ahole - :lol:

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

TatankaGap wrote:

Everyone at some point faces whether to be willing to kill in self-defense. Obviously, Gandhi and Mother Theresa expressed that they would rather die and have less karma than fight and/or kill in self-defense. Yet, it was also Gandhi who wrote that the most compassionate thing to do with a mad dog is to put it down - send it back because to let it live is to prolong its suffering. So, even Gandhi who wouldn't kill in self-defense, would kill in the name of compassion to end suffering

Ghandi's teachings are sort of an enigma to me. From what I can gather, his non-violence teachings were in regards to government violence against protesting subjects.

http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Gandhi.html


> COWARDICE IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH NON-VIOLENCE...
NON-VIOLENCE PRESUPPOSES THE ABILITY TO STRIKE. (I-59)

> A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation,
anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their
womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or
group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life,
retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long
way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence.
The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others,
maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him.
A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a
society of men and women. (II-148).

> If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of
the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self-defense.
There should be no camouflage... It must never be secret. (II-146)

> No doubt the non-violent way is alawys the best, but where
that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary
and honourable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly.
It must be shunned at all cost. (I-402)

> He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour
by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently
dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.
(I-77)[/quote]

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

And dealer transfer fees are a legit way for a dealer to make a buck, and we all should be cool with that;

I disagree. There is no need for dealer transfer fees, or for that matter FFL licenses to exist at all. I don't blame the FFL dealers that have fees, I blame the government that forces people to use dealers to make transfers. I should be able to buy a modern gun from another state and have it shipped to my door just like one could do with a replica cap and ball revolver.

The only tangible result of the FFL license system is to make gun ownership more difficult.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

The only tangible result of the FFL license system is to make gun ownership more difficult.

QFT

 

[TFred]

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

And dealer transfer fees are a legit way for a dealer to make a buck, and we all should be cool with that;

I disagree. There is no need for dealer transfer fees, or for that matter FFL licenses to exist at all. I don't blame the FFL dealers that have fees, I blame the government that forces people to use dealers to make transfers. I should be able to buy a modern gun from another state and have it shipped to my door just like one could do with a replica cap and ball revolver.

The only tangible result of the FFL license system is to make gun ownership more difficult.

I would suppose the reason for requiring an in-state FFL to do the final transfer is that there are fewer federal databases from which one can run a background check. So it's kind of a "catch-22" situation, we don't want a federal database, but we don't want the requirement of using an in-state FFL.

As long as there is a federal requirement to do a background check for commercially procured handguns, the in-state FFL check is probably the least onerous of the options.

TFred

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

TFred wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

And dealer transfer fees are a legit way for a dealer to make a buck, and we all should be cool with that;

I disagree. There is no need for dealer transfer fees, or for that matter FFL licenses to exist at all. I don't blame the FFL dealers that have fees, I blame the government that forces people to use dealers to make transfers. I should be able to buy a modern gun from another state and have it shipped to my door just like one could do with a replica cap and ball revolver.

The only tangible result of the FFL license system is to make gun ownership more difficult.

I would suppose the reason for requiring an in-state FFL to do the final transfer is that there are fewer federal databases from which one can run a background check. So it's kind of a "catch-22" situation, we don't want a federal database, but we don't want the requirement of using an in-state FFL.

As long as there is a federal requirement to do a background check for commercially procured handguns, the in-state FFL check is probably the least onerous of the options.

TFred

AHEM. Just wanted to clarify. I am not saying we should "be cool" with the FFL requirements. At all. I was only saying that so long as the requirements exist, and require a dealer as a middleman; then we should not begrudge him a (reasonable) profit. If someone needs to get to a dealer to pick up a weapon, I'm gonna chaarge him for the ride. I'm not running a charity, nd nether are the dealers.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Probably the most deluded part of this boondoggle is taking a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm (GUNS GOTS FINGERS??? :what What utter futility. A rattail file, a little steel wool and even less ingenuity can COMPLETELY CHANGE the groove, extractor and ejector "tool marks" on cartridges fired with any weapon. This requirement is an utter waste of City money and police manpower. And hoodlums mostly use stolen arms anyway.

I was unaware the crooks in DC were just dropping there revolver brass on the
street. I never even heard of one using speed loaders while committing a crime.

But I would charge a lot of money if you made me drive into anti maryland,
I would offer massive discounts to pick one up from a safe VA. gun store though.

If anything they should waive all fees, since the government knows where every
transfer paper is with only one possible 'dealer' in the district. Why not eliminate
the middle man and let the police take the gun since they need to 'fingerprint'
it first anyways, then they can give it to the buyer. This would stop an honest
resident from getting a stolen piece, I am sure no crooks would hand one over
to the cops in the first place to make a sale. Plus it would give them a massive
supply of guns to use in their criminal activity while waiting for the buyer to pick
it up.
Everyone wins.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[IanB]

imported post

http://thebeltwayoutsider.com/2009/09/07/how-hard-is-it-to-get-a-legal-handgun-in-d-c/