Gun control debate (merged)

#25,101
#25,101
LouderVol said:
It would likely just be one, and it would be a consistent on/off thing. A couple days to a weak stored, pick it up, drop it back off maybe same day, store for a couple days, repeat.

I am not asking for myself, but this person wants protection while on hikes, but doesnt feel comfortable storing in an apartment.
Click to expand...

It's going to be difficult to find such a place. If it's just a sidearm why don't they just get a small safe?
 
#25,103
#25,103
LouderVol said:
It would likely just be one, and it would be a consistent on/off thing. A couple days to a weak stored, pick it up, drop it back off maybe same day, store for a couple days, repeat.

I am not asking for myself, but this person wants protection while on hikes, but doesnt feel comfortable storing in an apartment.
Click to expand...

The easiest answer is a trusted friend with a safe. I know of a few outfits like Gunsitters but if you aren't near one of their facilities that's probably not workable. Is he a member of a gun range? If so for a fee they might be able store it for you. A range might for a fee store one for a non-member as well. The last option that came to mind would be pawn shop. They take firearms all the time and basically store them for a fee as a matter of business. One could work out a deal there but I'd make certain to have some kind of very clear contract that the weapon in question isn't part of the "normal" pawn inventory. (but I'm sure there would be some kind of language where after X amount of time of non-payment they're not just going to hold it for you indefinitely)
 
#25,106
#25,106
hndog609 said:
The easiest answer is a trusted friend with a safe. I know of a few outfits like Gunsitters but if you aren't near one of their facilities that's probably not workable. Is he a member of a gun range? If so for a fee they might be able store it for you. A range might for a fee store one for a non-member as well. The last option that came to mind would be pawn shop. They take firearms all the time and basically store them for a fee as a matter of business. One could work out a deal there but I'd make certain to have some kind of very clear contract that the weapon in question isn't part of the "normal" pawn inventory. (but I'm sure there would be some kind of language where after X amount of time of non-payment they're not just going to hold it for you indefinitely)
Click to expand...

Pawn shops that sell guns have an FFL, I'm sure they'd take it on a 30 day loan but would require a 4473 when you came to pick it up.
 
#25,107
#25,107
hndog609 said:
The easiest answer is a trusted friend with a safe. I know of a few outfits like Gunsitters but if you aren't near one of their facilities that's probably not workable. Is he a member of a gun range? If so for a fee they might be able store it for you. A range might for a fee store one for a non-member as well. The last option that came to mind would be pawn shop. They take firearms all the time and basically store them for a fee as a matter of business. One could work out a deal there but I'd make certain to have some kind of very clear contract that the weapon in question isn't part of the "normal" pawn inventory. (but I'm sure there would be some kind of language where after X amount of time of non-payment they're not just going to hold it for you indefinitely)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I knew there wasnt an easy solution.
 
#25,108
#25,108
hog88 said:
Pawn shops that sell guns have an FFL, I'm sure they'd take it on a 30 day loan but would require a 4473 when you came to pick it up.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that IF they agreed to what I'm suggesting that wouldn't come into play. If you are "pawning" a gun you're actually transferring ownership. It's their gun, bought and paid for by the amount for which it was pawned. Basically you just have dibs on getting it back assuming you keep up with the payments. If it's literally just a safe storage agreement with no ownership transference I see no need for FFL paperwork. (All of this assumes you could find one to play along in the first place)
 
Last edited:
#25,113
#25,113
hndog609 said:
I'm pretty sure that IF they agreed to what I'm suggesting that wouldn't come into play. If you are "pawning" a gun you're actually transferring ownership. It's their gun, bought and paid for by the amount for which it was pawned. Basically you just have dibs on getting it back assuming you keep up with the payments. If it's literally just a safe storage agreement with no ownership transference I see no need for FFL paperwork. (All of this assumes you could find one to play along in the first place)
Click to expand...

Louder has brought up an interesting question. I have always thought once you hand over a firearm to an FFL they must log it onto their books and they would have to do a BGC to give it back. I don't know if it's an exception or not but gunsmiths don't have to do a BGC when returning a gun to the owner after repairs/modifications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#25,114
#25,114
This argument that he was not allowed to have a firearm means that firearms restrictions would not have value or a purpose makes no sense. Many criminals possess guns which were once legally owned by someone else -- they are stolen, lost, sold illegally, and on and on.

So the above comments that he wasn't allowed to have a gun so, walla, this proves gun restrictions would not work, is illogical. It is an inevitable consequence of less guns being out there that less could fall into the hands of criminals.

The debate should be over how we balance the following:

* strengthen punishment for those who commerce in them, illegally
* strengthen punishment for those who possess them, illegally
* consequences for those who start with legal ownership allowing their firearms to end up in illegal commerce

The goal all of all of the above should be to reduce the number of illegally possessed firearms. I assume we can all agree that is the goal.
 
#25,115
#25,115
lawgator1 said:
This argument that he was not allowed to have a firearm means that firearms restrictions would not have value or a purpose makes no sense. Many criminals possess guns which were once legally owned by someone else -- they are stolen, lost, sold illegally, and on and on.

So the above comments that he wasn't allowed to have a gun so, walla, this proves gun restrictions would not work, is illogical. It is an inevitable consequence of less guns being out there that less could fall into the hands of criminals.

The debate should be over how we balance the following:

* strengthen punishment for those who commerce in them, illegally
* strengthen punishment for those who possess them, illegally
* consequences for those who start with legal ownership allowing their firearms to end up in illegal commerce

The goal all of all of the above should be to reduce the number of illegally possessed firearms. I assume we can all agree that is the goal.
Click to expand...
Or we do the smart thing and keep bad people in jail where they belong and quit trying to punish law abiding citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, csprig9 and OL SMOKEY
#25,117
#25,117
lawgator1 said:
This argument that he was not allowed to have a firearm means that firearms restrictions would not have value or a purpose makes no sense. Many criminals possess guns which were once legally owned by someone else -- they are stolen, lost, sold illegally, and on and on.

So the above comments that he wasn't allowed to have a gun so, walla, this proves gun restrictions would not work, is illogical. It is an inevitable consequence of less guns being out there that less could fall into the hands of criminals.

The debate should be over how we balance the following:

* strengthen punishment for those who commerce in them, illegally
* strengthen punishment for those who possess them, illegally
* consequences for those who start with legal ownership allowing their firearms to end up in illegal commerce

The goal all of all of the above should be to reduce the number of illegally possessed firearms. I assume we can all agree that is the goal.
Click to expand...

The goal should be reducing the people who are not fit enough to possess a firearm. NOT putting more burdens on law abiding citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, LouderVol and mr.checkerboards
#25,118
#25,118
hog88 said:
Louder has brought up an interesting question. I have always thought once you hand over a firearm to an FFL they must log it onto their books and they would have to do a BGC to give it back. I don't know if it's an exception or not but gunsmiths don't have to do a BGC when returning a gun to the owner after repairs/modifications.
Click to expand...

It was that last part you cite that was on my mind. There's a legal difference between "possession" and "transfer". There are a lot of people now, for instance a TN guy that wanted to hunt elk in MO, that instead of going through the hassle of flying with their guns simply ship them ahead "to themselves". The actual receiver doesn't take possession so no need for an FFL. (IIRC though they can't even open package in that particular example) Anyway I don't know for certain how the pawn shop idea (or even gun range) scenario would play out in the real world but I know there are examples of simple possession not requiring FFL/GCG paperwork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#25,120
#25,120
lawgator1 said:
This argument that he was not allowed to have a firearm means that firearms restrictions would not have value or a purpose makes no sense. Many criminals possess guns which were once legally owned by someone else -- they are stolen, lost, sold illegally, and on and on.

So the above comments that he wasn't allowed to have a gun so, walla, this proves gun restrictions would not work, is illogical. It is an inevitable consequence of less guns being out there that less could fall into the hands of criminals.

The debate should be over how we balance the following:

* strengthen punishment for those who commerce in them, illegally
* strengthen punishment for those who possess them, illegally
* consequences for those who start with legal ownership allowing their firearms to end up in illegal commerce

The goal all of all of the above should be to reduce the number of illegally possessed firearms. I assume we can all agree that is the goal.
Click to expand...
Since when has rarity of an object hurt the attainment of an illegal item?

All you are doing is hurting the law abiding citizen. Those breaking the law already wont be off put by there being fewer legal weapons out there. If anything it makes their job easier.

All of the crimes you listed are already felonies, how is punishment going to get worse?

Why not focus on enforcing the laws already in place, instead of enacting more laws that also wont be enforced? If anything the new laws would be even less enforced as you are asking the same ineffective government agencies to police even more actions. No way that is going to make the system of "protection", wink wink, any more effective.

Your examples of these laws prove you dont care about illegal firearms or what people do with them. All of your actions are specifically targetting the law abiding while ignoring the actual criminals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and mr.checkerboards
#25,123
#25,123
hog88 said:
The goal should be reducing the people who are not fit enough to possess a firearm. NOT putting more burdens on law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately many what you term law abiding citizens have proven that they cannot be trusted with that responsibility because they failed to take reasonable steps to keep their guns safe and in their sole possession.

That's why there has to be some significant consequence for such a failing. We know it's a huge part of the problem.
 
#25,124
#25,124
lawgator1 said:
Unfortunately many what you term law abiding citizens have proven that they cannot be trusted with that responsibility because they failed to take reasonable steps to keep their guns safe and in their sole possession.

That's why there has to be some significant consequence for such a failing. We know it's a huge part of the problem.
Click to expand...

And your back to victim blaming, never change LG. Girls shouldn't wear those short skirts huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33 and Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top