Finally....straw purchasing may become illegal

[iamsam]

i'm not suggesting a policy change, simply saying "this does not seem right to me".

I'm glad that we don't do policy changes on "what doesn't seem right".


Oh wait, we do...

[Morrison]

[QUOTE=mrsleeve;3625124]UUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMM WTF do you mean finally???? Straw purchases have been illegal for a very long time. In fact its the 1st fucking question on your 4473 NICS form.

1a) Are you the actual buyer if the firearm(s) listed above?? (then in Bold it reads) Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If your not the actual buyer the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.


This is partly true. I looked it up and yes, lying on that form is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. But it would be pretty hard to prove that the person didn't just change their mind after they first purchased it for themselves. It doesn't lay out any details of what constitutes a "straw purchase" As you said, it's pretty vague right now in terms of how much time must pass for ownership to be considered legitimate, etc. A new, fully fleshed out law, would do exactly that.

You also missed the fact that there are many ways to buy outside of going through an FFL dealer. This is why a specific law for this is needed. Also they will make smuggling guns out of the country its own separate offense and or modifier to straw purchasing.

I highly doubt the fed's would come after one guy in Montana after it was discovered that he sold "A" gun privately. And even if they did I'm sure you'd have a reasonable explanation.

[mrsleeve]

^

Lets see here, I have posted the full text of the bill and it does NOT lay out anything for reasonable time for before you can transfer it privately.

Next we have what seems like an outlawing of private transfers with the wording of the bill and leaving no provisions in defining what a constitutes a private party transfer. In fact it seems as this bill will outlaw them, and force the unconstitutional "universal background checks" we keep hearing about which we all know criminals wont adhere too.

As we all know that owing firearms in this country is a right, that means a couple things. Right off the bat, firearms ownership may not be taxed and may not be registered. The Supreme Court and the FOPA of 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act) have reinforced this, you do know that enumerated rights have a protected status rights??? Unlike property, income or H/C, rights cannot be taxed and registries are plain prohibited. Background checks cost money. They are performed by FFL's many/most charge money for this service. This is important because if mandatory background checks use the system as it is in place now, the government will be putting a de facto tax on gun ownership, you cant do that!!! Just like the Voter ID laws were struck down because it costs money to get a State ID and there for was construed as a de facto Poll tax and a big no no, same thing here. On top of that, FFLs, Federal Firearms License holders, must keep ATF-accessible records of who applied for background checks, which is comparable to a registry!!!


Next because private party transfers cost nothing and records are not required this gives buyers and sellers an opportunity to opt out of the fees and stay off the books. Though the vast majority of gun buyers participate and purchase through FFLs and have their backgrounds checked, including some that aren’t allowed to own firearms, giving some small amount of credibilty to the whole ordeal, the very existence of private party transfers with the lack of a background check, makes the NICS background check system legal. A argument against a mandatory background check system could be made under the 5ths prohibition against self-incrimination, though a much weaker one. Just think if you had to give up one right to use another because its deemed to be "in the public interest", you cant do that, Rights cannot be ceded for other rights.

No conceivable background check could ever hope to prevent straw purchases and this bill is just another attempt to put undue burden's on the law abiding buried in a "feel good title" in hopes no one will read it. As it is crime did not appreciably drop following the adoption of the NICS system. Background checks do a pretty good job at what they are actually designed to do prevent those with good intentions from accidentally breaking the law. But as a way to curb crime or prevent violence, background checks are as useful as gun-free zones. They don’t touch the criminal world, and can’t.

well it's a good thing those rights never get fucked with either. /s

you guys are way to quick to feeding-frenzy in here. i'm not suggesting a policy change, simply saying "this does not seem right to me".

simmer down now.

and lodsin, don't be lazy. post a statistic if you're gonna reference it.

Never said they didnt, its just we have way more infringements and conditional requirements on the 2ed than the 1st dont you agree.

Feeding frenzy, we are just pointing out to Morrsion that this shit is already on the books as illegal, and there is something fishy going on with this redundant and ambiguously worded new bill. Just look who the primary draftees are Durbin, Leyhay, Gillibrand, ect um not your crop of firearms friendly legislators.

[Morrison]

This isn't just happening on a federal level or by a select group of Washington politicians either.

A straw gun purchase bill aimed at providing harsher punishments for repeat offenders passed the Pennsylvania state senate by a 49-0 vote and the house by a 186 to 10 vote.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/timesherald_101712.shtml

Wisconsin is also pushing its own bill: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/82356932.html

And Virginia stiffens its penalties: http://wamu.org/news/13/02/22/virgin...ghter_gun_laws

If the federal form was so valuable for prosecuting this, then why is any of this even pursued?

[iamsam]

This just in! It is now becoming illegal to shoot unarmed civilians who are not immediately threatening your health and safety, especially in "no carry" zones like schools, movie theaters, and other public venues!


What is this world coming to?

[mrsleeve]

This isn't just happening on a federal level or by a select group of Washington politicians either.

A straw gun purchase bill aimed at providing harsher punishments for repeat offenders passed the Pennsylvania state senate by a 49-0 vote and the house by a 186 to 10 vote.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/timesherald_101712.shtml

Wisconsin is also pushing its own bill: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/82356932.html

And Virginia stiffens its penalties: http://wamu.org/news/13/02/22/virgin...ghter_gun_laws

If the federal form was so valuable for prosecuting this, then why is any of this even pursued?

Please see my edit in the post above this one

ehhh fuck it here it is again

Lets see here, I have posted the full text of the bill and it does NOT lay out anything for reasonable time for before you can transfer it privately.

Next we have what seems like an outlawing of private transfers with the wording of the bill and leaving no provisions in defining what a constitutes a private party transfer. In fact it seems as this bill will outlaw them, and force the unconstitutional "universal background checks" we keep hearing about which we all know criminals wont adhere too.

As we all know that owing firearms in this country is a right, that means a couple things. Right off the bat, firearms ownership may not be taxed and may not be registered. The Supreme Court and the FOPA of 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act) have reinforced this, you do know that enumerated rights have a protected status rights??? Unlike property, income or H/C, rights cannot be taxed and registries are plain prohibited. Background checks cost money. They are performed by FFL's many/most charge money for this service. This is important because if mandatory background checks use the system as it is in place now, the government will be putting a de facto tax on gun ownership, you cant do that!!! Just like the Voter ID laws were struck down because it costs money to get a State ID and there for was construed as a de facto Poll tax and a big no no, same thing here. On top of that, FFLs, Federal Firearms License holders, must keep ATF-accessible records of who applied for background checks, which is comparable to a registry!!!


Next because private party transfers cost nothing and records are not required this gives buyers and sellers an opportunity to opt out of the fees and stay off the books. Though the vast majority of gun buyers participate and purchase through FFLs and have their backgrounds checked, including some that aren’t allowed to own firearms, giving some small amount of credibilty to the whole ordeal, the very existence of private party transfers with the lack of a background check, makes the NICS background check system legal. A argument against a mandatory background check system could be made under the 5ths prohibition against self-incrimination, though a much weaker one. Just think if you had to give up one right to use another because its deemed to be "in the public interest", you cant do that, Rights cannot be ceded for other rights.

No conceivable background check could ever hope to prevent straw purchases and this bill is just another attempt to put undue burden's on the law abiding buried in a "feel good title" in hopes no one will read it. As it is crime did not appreciably drop following the adoption of the NICS system. Background checks do a pretty good job at what they are actually designed to do prevent those with good intentions from accidentally breaking the law. But as a way to curb crime or prevent violence, background checks are as useful as gun-free zones. They don’t touch the criminal world, and can’t.

[Morrison]

You can put your fears of a universal background check to rest, at least as it pertains to this bill alone. The universal background check has it's own proposal but that is another story altogether. The defacto tax cost thing you mention is intriguing. I'm inclined to agree but is there sales tax on gun purchases? If it is, then would you also argue that they should be tax exempt? It looks like there is a lawmaker in Texas who wants to implement a sales tax holiday for guns and ammo, interesting:

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/27/4089383/texas-lawmaker-wants-tax-holiday.html

And this:

But as of now, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins does not support universal background checks. And Mark Brewer, who teaches political science at UMaine Orono, doesn't expect that to change.

"There's very little reason for her to support anything that could be seen by gun rights supporters as a significant infringement on their rights," Brewer says.

Collins, a moderate Republican, faces the voters again in 2014. Brewer says it's unlikely that she would do anything to upset all the gun rights supporters who've supported her in the past - and look poised to do so again.

[mrsleeve]

You can put your fears of a universal background check to rest, at least as it pertains to this bill alone. The universal background check has it's own proposal but that is another story altogether. The defacto tax cost thing you mention is intriguing. I'm inclined to agree but is there sales tax on gun purchases? If it is, then would you also argue that they should be tax exempt? It looks like there is a lawmaker in Texas who wants to implement a sales tax holiday for guns and ammo, interesting:

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/27/4089383/texas-lawmaker-wants-tax-holiday.html

And this:

But as of now, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins does not support universal background checks. And Mark Brewer, who teaches political science at UMaine Orono, doesn't expect that to change.

"There's very little reason for her to support anything that could be seen by gun rights supporters as a significant infringement on their rights," Brewer says.

Collins, a moderate Republican, faces the voters again in 2014. Brewer says it's unlikely that she would do anything to upset all the gun rights supporters who've supported her in the past - and look poised to do so again.

Yes there is a 10% Hidden Federal tax on New Firearms, and 11% on ammo. Now this is only for NEW original sales I would have to check and see if this would apply to a used or consignment sale though a FFL as well though IIRC NO. When you are are buying USED in a Private party Transfer you are Opting out of not only the NICS but also the taxes and State sales taxes if your state has one. The very existence of the Private party transfer also allows the existence of such taxes to remain legal. The universal background check for all transfers will open a legal shit storm like almost nothing else, short of outright Banning and confiscation.

[Morrison]

We did have a poll tax until 1964 when a new amendment was put in place to expressly prohibit it. I'm not entirely sure that every right laid out in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments is automatically fee-free. Or at least historically this has been the case. Even today for instance in criminal and civil court you are assessed fees, yet you have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If the second amendment or a subsequent entry specifically forbid fee then I'd be more apt to agree with the analogy to the poll tax.

[mrsleeve]

Historically there was NEVER A POLL tax in the US until after the Civil war and the ratification of the 14th and 15th amendment. Those POLL taxes were part of the Jim Crow Laws and were enacted at the state level, in SOME of the southern states to keep freed slaves ( along with other undesirables) form voting, at the same time freed slaves bared the owning firearms and ammo to keep them from revolting and raising general mayham. These laws were isolated to some of the southern states and were not federal law, so again your points are generally moot at best on this as well.

You cant conditionalize and tax or charge a fee to exercise a right especially an enumerated right, plain and simple no two ways around that. Not to mention AGAIN that the FOPA 1986 that has been vetted by the courts also says it cant be done

[Morrison]

But was the poll tax actually considered "unconsitutional" for 70 some odd years whilst remaining in place? If so then why was a separate amendment required to abolish it, if the earlier enumerated rights were sufficient on their own to disallow taxation?

Be that as it may....you still pay a poll tax, abeit hidden today. There are still government employees involved in handling and overseeing the election process and you pay their salary through taxes...so poll tax.

Background checks aren't going anywhere. The only other option then is that we all pay collectively via our income taxes. That option sounds like it would be more consitutionally acceptable for you but oddly its also a bit more socialistic in nature. You won't know whether to celebrate or fret.