Rep Massie posts gun photo

#352
#352
#353
#353
Vol8188 said:
Those guns are all in his name. If he wishes to remove that, he must file documentation to have them placed in someone else’s name.
Click to expand...
But if he doesn't, he can claim he sold them to someone he doesn't know.
When you sell a gun are you required to do a background check on the person?
If not, you just claim you had no idea they couldn't legally purchase.
He has no reason to fear selling those guns to anyone.
 
#356
#356
0nelilreb said:
If I have the right to do something now and I’m not the target because I don’t do wrong but you come along and restrict or take away my right to do it … yes submitting to a background check to decide if you have a right or not is most certainly an infringement of my rights . Not allowing a felon to own a firearm after they have paid their debt to society is an infringement of their rights .
Click to expand...
So background checks are constitutionally illegal? Or you just disagree with the SCOTUS?
 
#357
#357
luthervol said:
But if he doesn't, he can claim he sold them to someone he doesn't know.
When you sell a gun are you required to do a background check on the person?
If not, you just claim you had no idea they couldn't legally purchase.
He has no reason to fear selling those guns to anyone.
Click to expand...
I guess it should come as little surprise that you don't seem to realize these laws are set by the states, and therefore, differ across the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#359
#359
Vol423 said:
I guess it should come as little surprise that you don't seem to realize these laws are set by the states, and therefore, differ across the country.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm well aware states have different laws.
 
#360
#360
luthervol said:
But if he doesn't, he can claim he sold them to someone he doesn't know.
When you sell a gun are you required to do a background check on the person?
If not, you just claim you had no idea they couldn't legally purchase.
He has no reason to fear selling those guns to anyone.
Click to expand...

That is not a valid defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#361
#361
luthervol said:
But were viewed as legal by the SCOTUS. So maybe it isn't actually an infringement, and you can have rational and reasonable limitations on 2a. Who would have thunk it?
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled many infringements legal. Doesn't mean they are not infringements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo
#362
#362
luthervol said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t. The majority of poor people in this country are white. The majority of welfare recipients. The majority of those on unemployment. The majority of those on food stamps. All white.

But the majority of violent crimes are committed by only 13% of the population.

Clearly the issue isn’t poverty
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#365
#365
luthervol said:
What is not a valid defense?
Is he required to make some arbitrary determination on whether or not the person can legally purchase?
Click to expand...

Claiming to not know someone you sold a firearm to wasn't legally allowed to own one. Yes, it is the responsibility of the seller in a private transaction to know if the buyer can legally buy the firearm. If there is any doubt go to the nearest FFL and do a 4473.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and DynaLo
#366
#366
Vol8188 said:
It doesn’t. The majority of poor people in this country are white. The majority of welfare recipients. The majority of those on unemployment. The majority of those on food stamps. All white.

But the majority of violent crimes are committed by only 13% of the population.

Clearly the issue isn’t poverty
Click to expand...
The murder rate among poor white people is much higher than the murder rate among other white people.
 
#367
#367
luthervol said:
So when he sells each of the 10 guns he purchased legally, what documentation is required to file?
Click to expand...

As an original purchaser with the serial number registered on your 4473, a smart person uses a Bill of Sale with the serial # and buyer’s DL or Carry Permit info on it as well as a signed statement from the buyer saying they are legally allowed under State Laws to purchase and own the firearm. (Criminals don’t like paper trails.)

After that it’s up to subsequent sellers to cover their butt, but you as the original owner have now got documentation that you sold that weapon legally to the best of your ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and Vol423
#368
#368
luthervol said:
The murder rate among poor white people is much higher than the murder rate among other white people.
Click to expand...

But not as high as the murder rate among black people. If you we adjust for poverty, you still find the black homicide rate is far above that of equally impoverished white people.

So obviously the issue isn’t poverty
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#369
#369
hog88 said:
Claiming to not know someone you sold a firearm to wasn't legally allowed to own one. Yes, it is the responsibility of the seller in a private transaction to know if the buyer can legally buy the firearm. If there is any doubt go to the nearest FFL and do a 4473.
Click to expand...
Great. Another rational and reasonable limit. You guys should be fighting to have this restriction removed.
But what happens if you claim you thought they were legally able but it turns out they were not?
Charge them with the same crime - that would be a good start.
 
#370
#370
luthervol said:
So background checks are constitutionally illegal? Or you just disagree with the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

I disagree , but like your subjective stance of how the 2a reads , neither of our opinions really matter .
 
#371
#371
DynaLo said:
As an original purchaser with the serial number registered on your 4473, a smart person uses a Bill of Sale with the serial # and buyer’s DL or Carry Permit info on it as well as a signed statement from the buyer saying they are legally allowed under State Laws to purchase and own the firearm. (Criminals don’t like paper trails.)

After that it’s up to subsequent sellers to cover their butt, but you as the original owner have now got documentation that you sold that weapon legally to the best of your ability.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a pretty good system. But we're talking about original purchasers who are not wishing to leave a paper trail.
 
#372
#372
Vol8188 said:
But not as high as the murder rate among black people. If you we adjust for poverty, you still find the black homicide rate is far above that of equally impoverished white people.

So obviously the issue isn’t poverty
Click to expand...
Obviously the issue is poverty, but it is not the only issue.
 
#373
#373
0nelilreb said:
I disagree , but like your subjective stance of how the 2a reads , neither of our opinions really matter .
Click to expand...
But we can conclude that according to the SCOTUS there can be rational and reasonable limits applied to 2a without amending the constitution.
 
#374
#374
luthervol said:
Obviously the issue is poverty, but it is not the only issue.
Click to expand...

It’s not the issue. Poverty doesn’t cause you to kill someone. You’re intentionally misinterpreting the data. But the type of people who are more likely to commit violent crimes are more likely to be poor

If the issue was poverty the majority of violent crimes would be committed by the majority of poor people (white people)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#375
#375
luthervol said:
Great. Another rational and reasonable limit. You guys should be fighting to have this restriction removed.
But what happens if you claim you thought they were legally able but it turns out they were not?
Charge them with the same crime - that would be a good start.
Click to expand...

There are a few ways to protect yourself as the seller.

Yes, I agree we should remove that from the law. Just hold people accountable for their actions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top