Obama being a dumbass again

[Doomsday]

Here's something -- I've visited a few gun shops and a gun show recently to help me decide on which pistols I want to purchase. One realization that I've had, and actually I find it fairly sickening -- I see some people shopping there who really don't look like they should have a gun. I admit it, I'm going by appearances and stereotypes, but I'm talking droopy pants, very poorly educated (judging by their speech), thug-like types ... and it has happened twice now, that when I've walked by such individuals, I've smelled alcohol on their breath.

I may have it all wrong, but I'll tell you, it really strikes me as odd or surreal. ... it is as if the gun shops / gun shows are like no-fire, time-out zones ... where nobody shoots each each other on premises. Instead, people are arming themselves so that they can shoot each other off premises. It is kind of insane, really.

In bars - in Texas at least - it is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is clearly inebriated. If you as a bartender, waitress or bar owner do that you can face jail time, a fine and the bar's license gets pulled.

I have no problem at all with this same type of regulation for every firearm dealer and seller. In fact a civil court case about exactly this is making its way through the appeals process right now. It's a case of "straw" purchases - where someone with a disqualifying item on their record bypasses the background checks by getting their mom or someone else with a clean record, to purchase them a gun.

In the case mentioned, the straw buyer is present at the gun shop during the sale, even picks out the pistol he wanted, and then the straw purchaser made the transaction. Then the straw buyer used the gun to kill someone. The suit is trying to hold the gun shop employee and the store liable for the wrongful death.

This is exactly what happened with alcohol sales, where a bar sold a obviously drunk guy more booze, then he went out and killed someone with his car.

I would not mind a sane, sensible set of regulations from the ATF that holds gun sellers and dealers liable for the sales they make, especially when it's a obvious straw transaction, or when selling to a obviously intoxicated person, etc.

I've lived in the EU where the rate of gun ownership is much lower than the Deep South. It felt much safer there. I could go out late at night and not worry. I'd be much happier if far fewer people owned guns, but that's not the way it is here. So I'm going to begin to conceal carry, legally, when it is dark.

By the way the anti-gun nuts like to point to the "Old West" as something really bad, where gunplay was common and life was really dangerous. But in reality, it wasn't. Everyone had guns and it actually made for a much safer, lawful environment in most places. Murder per capita was never lower than during this time, in those areas.

Let's start with one of the big ones and the one that most closely ties into this thread. The Brady bill which requires a background check and a 5 day waiting period on the purchase of a hand gun from any licensed dealer.

How does that target "illegally obtained firearms"

Nobody said it did, Straw Man. BUT, look closely at that law - you CAN be prosecuted under that law if you are caught federally - not local or state police mind you - with a illegal firearm. No matter how you obtained it. That's discretionary for federal prosecutors.

 

[Scot]

Actually you said it did
You said and I quote

"Every federal law on the books" when I asked you "what gun control specifically targets illegally obtained firearms?"

 

[Scot]

No law specifically targets illegally obtained firearms. There are laws that blanket all firearms or serve to increase what is considered an illegal firearm. But no law to my knowledge specifically targets (to reduce) the overall number of "illegally obtained" firearms

 

[Doomsday]

No law specifically targets illegally obtained firearms.

Are you even reading what you're posting?

Go steal a gun, then take it to a FBI agent and tell him you stole it. You will find yourself under prosecution under several federal statutes.

 

[Scot]

Are you reading what I'm posting?

I stated illegally obtained, as in "already" in the hands of the criminal

What law is in place to attempts to remove guns that are already in the hands of the criminal?

 

[Doomsday]

What law is in place to attempts to remove guns that are already in the hands of the criminal?

Just about any you can name have that. You don't even remember what you were trying to argue.

What does "hands of a criminal" mean? If you're talking convicted felons, federal law has a statute for "felon in possession" and it carries a minimum of five years in federal stir.

Do they go out and hunt for criminals carrying guns? Hell who knows, but there's nothing stopping them from doing roadblocks like DWI checkpoints, if they wanted. They have the law behind them to do sweeps for guns.

 

[Scot]

Do they go out and hunt for criminals carrying guns? Hell who knows, but there's nothing stopping them from doing roadblocks like DWI checkpoints, if they wanted. They have the law behind them to do sweeps for guns.

No actually they don't have the law behind them to set up check points to search for weapons (legal or otherwise). There is a little provision called probable cause that is required first.

 

[Doomsday]

No actually they don't have the law behind them to set up check points to search for weapons (legal or otherwise). There is a little provision called probable cause that is required first.

you're naive.

 

[ZeroClub]

By the way the anti-gun nuts like to point to the "Old West" as something really bad, where gunplay was common and life was really dangerous. But in reality, it wasn't. Everyone had guns and it actually made for a much safer, lawful environment in most places. Murder per capita was never lower than during this time, in those areas.

Not what you meant, but if the only guns available now were 1870's single-action revolvers, things would be safer.

 

[Doomsday]

Not what you meant, but if the only guns available now were 1870's single-action revolvers, things would be safer.

You would "feel" safer, because the scary looking "assault" style rifles wouldn't exist. But you really wouldn't be any safer.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

fags and politics

 

[Scot]

you're naive.

How so? Because the law requires that an officer first needs probable cause to search a person, vehicle, or dwelling?

I never said that I believe that all officers abide by that. Lord knows they can twist virtually anything into "probable cause"

But it is the law none the less. There have been plenty of people who have not been convicted or had a case dismissed for lack of proof of probable cause

 

[Doomsday]

How so? Because the law requires that an officer first needs probable cause to search a person, vehicle, or dwelling?

Actually he only needs permission or a warrant, and he gets the warrant by making a call on the phone if he didn't get permission. And he doesn't even need any of that if something illegal is in plain view. And it doesn't matter what the illegal thing is.

You may not know this, but cities auction off seized firearms all the time. They get seized because they are illegally in possession. Many of these seizures come from.... wait for it.... Sobriety checkpoints.

It is specifically against the law to be found illegally in possession of a illicit firearm. And they actively enforce this law.

 

[Scot]

Do you really think that a person who has been drinking and has an illegal firearm is going to continue waiting in line to pass thru a checkpoint? Now that's naive or just wishful thinking. They will avoid the check point

Yes they need permission. No criminal with something to hide is going to give permission. Hell there are a lot of people with nothing to hide that won't give permission to search

You are correct, one call can get you a warrant. But that needs to then be signed by a judge. But before the warrant is issued what do they need first? Wait for it........

Probable cause

 

[Doomsday]

Do you really think that a person who has been drinking and has an illegal firearm is going to continue waiting in line to pass thru a checkpoint?

We collect firearms and DWIs just that way. Do you really think that if someone tries to dodge a checkpoint they won't get them with a traffic stop?

No criminal with something to hide is going to give permission.

They do it all the time. Every day in fact. You'd be shocked. Your problems is you don't think like a criminal.

But before the warrant is issued what do they need first? Wait for it........Probable cause

Not at all. All that is needed is to say "Judge, I want to search this car."

I suppose you believe all the firearms what go up for auction in every major city just fall from the sky. They do not, they are confiscated illegal firearms that GET legal when you buy them at auction. And a good percentage of them are seized at sobriety checkpoints. No matter how when or where seized, it is because it is illegal to be in possession of them.

Hey, next time you're in a major city (70K population or so) and hit one of these checkpoints, pay real close attention - a ATF agent is there for a specific reason.

Also understand - "probable cause" is whatever they say it is, no matter if it is at the time or after the fact. It's a throwaway term.

 

[Scot]

We collect firearms and DWIs just that way. Do you really think that if someone tries to dodge a checkpoint they won't get them with a traffic stop?

Hey, next time you're in a major city (70K population or so) and hit one of these checkpoints, pay real close attention - a .

No I don't think so, I know so. I will personally avoid a check point every single time. Not once have I ever been stopped for a traffic stop after turning away from, or out of a check point.

As for a large city well I live in one of the largest in the country, it's called Los Angeles with over 3.8 million people. I have paid attention my entire adult life. I refuse to have 30 minutes to an hour of my life wasted sitting in a line to wait to go thru a checkpoint. I don't do it because I'm drunk and don't want to get caught. I just have better things to do with my life than to wait in another line.

Again I have never once been stopped after blatantly avoiding a checkpoint. I have gone as far as to make a u turn when I am 2 vehicles back from a check point. Even after making the illegal u turn which would give them a valid reason to stop me. I have never once been stopped, rolled up on, or even questioned after intentionally avoiding a checkpoint.

I cant even count how many check points I have avoided over the years. But living in L.A. I would guess it's more than your average bear

 

[Scot]

Not at all. All that is needed is to say "Judge, I want to search this car."
.

XXX Wrong again
You are batting 1000

Then the warrant needs to be signed by the judge after the officer presents the affidavit

They only appear out of thin air on tv in cop shows. They always cut away after the cops initial phone call to the time sparky the cop shows up with the signed warrant. They avoid all the boring "legal" stuff to better entertain viewers

 

[Dodger12]

Not at all. All that is needed is to say "Judge, I want to search this car."

You've been watching too much TV Dooms. Sooner or later, the warrant will be scrutinized in a legal proceeding and, in many cases, the warrant is approved by a prosecutor before it goes to the judge for review. It's not that easy.

Hey, next time you're in a major city (70K population or so) and hit one of these checkpoints, pay real close attention - a ATF agent is there for a specific reason.

I've never seen an ATF Agent at a sobriety check-point.

 

[ZeroClub]

You would "feel" safer, because the scary looking "assault" style rifles wouldn't exist. But you really wouldn't be any safer.

That's insulting.

 

[peplaw06]

The meter was, shootings vs ALL other means. Not just knives. See.

But if the argument is that gun restrictions won't prevent mass deaths because there are other means to kill people, the percentages of mass killings committed by guns versus other means is particularly relevant. If you'll check the link, you'll see the percentages that other means are used to achieve mass killings.

As far as male suspects go (which is 94% of the killers), 73% do it by gun. 6% by knife, 8% by arson, 0% by strangulation, 4% by beating, and 9% "other." I think it's pretty clear what tool needs to be focused on here.