# New gun control ploy



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

As many around here might already know, Obama is considering issuing an executive order concerning gun control. The latest ploy is in defining who who is, and is not, a gun dealer.

The ploy arises from a vague definition of a gun dealer. While is says that you have to "be in the business" to be considered a dealer, it's not clear precisely what constitutes being in the business. It appears that the Obama administration intends to broaden the definition of who might be a gun dealer.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-weighs-white-house-moves-gun-control-n441186

There is precedent for this. People have been charged with being drug dealers for sharing their stash with others.

As I keep saying, gun owners will either regulate themselves voluntarily, or submit to regulation by others. It looks like that day has come.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You need a federal firearms license to be a dealer. There is no ambiguity in that. 

Even if 0bama does this it will be repealed. He'll probably do it as he enjoys armed protection for the rest of his life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You need a federal firearms license to be a dealer. There is no ambiguity in that.


He could require anyone selling at a gun show to get a license.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> He could require anyone selling at a gun show to get a license.


Ever wonder why he's trying to make life hard for honest Americans while siding with thugs and criminals?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> He could require anyone selling at a gun show to get a license.


Dealers at gun shows do have an FFL.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Dealers at gun shows do have an FFL.


Every gun I've ever bought at a gun show had to have the paperwork and background check.
The gun show loophole is nothing but another lie from the left, it doesn't exist.
It's just another Obama lie to fool the stupid, and they are obligingly fooled again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Dealers at gun shows do have an FFL.


_The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Are they mistaken?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> _The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
> 
> Are they mistaken?


It is not a "gun show loophole". I can buy a gun from my Dad or a friend or an unknown acquaintance as a private transaction without a license anywhere, anytime. 

Is that a gun show loophole?

Public transactions require an FFL.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> It is not a "gun show loophole". I can buy a gun from my Dad or a friend or an unknown acquaintance as a private transaction without a license anywhere, anytime.


I know that in Nevada I can sell to another Nevada resident, but if I sell to a resident of another state it has to go through a FFL.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Currently, in New York, according to Heir Cuomo's S.A.F.E. act, for firearms to be transferred either given or sold from one person to another, it has to be done through a firearms dealer and subject to a background check. If you are shooting with me on the trap range and you would like to try my gun I would also have to have a background check done on you before I could hand my shotgun to you. If we are hunting together and you would like to borrow a handful of .22's from me, it would also require a background check. If I own what is currently called an "assault rifle" it has to be registered with the State and can not be transferred to anyone. Upon my death it must be surrendered to the State. 

How do honest firearm owners deal with this draconian law?

Easy, we ignore it.

Of the estimated 1,000,000 so called "assault rifles" in the State only 40,000 have been registered.

Private sales of longarms have continued between individuals just as they always have.

You can try my trap gun anytime you want.

Of the hundreds of millions of firearms in this nation, The government has very little idea of who owns what.

I say we keep it that way.

Obama can go pound salt.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> _The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
> 
> Are they mistaken?


All handgun sales, including private, require a pistol permit or a valid concealed carry license in NC. In order to get either, the Sheriff must do a background check. So in NC, they are wrong for all handgun sales.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I know that in Nevada I can sell to another Nevada resident, but if I sell to a resident of another state it has to go through a FFL.


In person or via a mail shipment? Or either? Here and other states I've lived that is true if mailed fedex or what ever shipper you have to go thru an FFL.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> All handgun sales, including private, require a pistol permit or a valid concealed carry license in NC. In order to get either, the Sheriff must do a background check. So in NC, they are wrong for all handgun sales.


We didn't need a ccw, but until a few months ago we (Clark County residents) had to register handguns. In fact, I had to register Alma's pistol when she died. I've since sold that gun to a collector in northern Nevada.

Here's the Sheriff order ending handgun registration.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150610/nevada-sheriff-lombardo-issues-administrative-notice


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Was it Obama or Clinton or one of the other rights grabbers who brought up the idea that your guns can't be inherited?
When you die, your firearms would go to the government for disposal.
This government is getting scary.
The servant is now the master


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> _The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
> 
> Are they mistaken?



No, just stupid.



Nevada said:


> As many around here might already know, Obama is considering issuing an executive order concerning gun control. The latest ploy is in defining who who is, and is not, a gun dealer.
> 
> As I keep saying, gun owners will either regulate themselves voluntarily, or submit to regulation by others. It looks like that day has come.


You (and Obama) have forgotten the *third* option......



JJ Grandits said:


> Currently, in New York, according to Heir Cuomo's S.A.F.E. act, for firearms to be transferred either given or sold from one person to another, it has to be done through a firearms dealer and subject to a background check. If you are shooting with me on the trap range and you would like to try my gun I would also have to have a background check done on you before I could hand my shotgun to you. If we are hunting together and you would like to borrow a handful of .22's from me, it would also require a background check. If I own what is currently called an "assault rifle" it has to be registered with the State and can not be transferred to anyone. Upon my death it must be surrendered to the State.
> 
> How do honest firearm owners deal with this draconian law?
> 
> ...




There are lots of little "exceptions" to this law and every law. It pays to read them and learn them for yourself.

It would probably be a big surprise to learn that you can legally build and own your own muzzle loading cannon or a gatling gun , both very effective when faced with an superior force intending to do you harm.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> In person or via a mail shipment? Or either? Here and other states I've lived that is true if mailed fedex or what ever shipper you have to go thru an FFL.


I did it in person, but I've been told that fedex will do it in-state with no FFL if you pay for overnight class. I can't confirm that from first-hand experience though.

It was a moot point with my sale. The pistol wasn't particularly valuable (~$70) so Fedex overnight would have been cost prohibitive. I just registered the pistol and waited until my collector friend came to town again. Everyone shows up on Las Vegas sooner or later. LOL


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> We didn't need a ccw, but until a few months ago we (Clark County residents) had to register handguns. In fact, I had to register Alma's pistol when she died. I've since sold that gun to a collector in northern Nevada.
> 
> Here's the Sheriff order ending handgun registration.
> 
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150610/nevada-sheriff-lombardo-issues-administrative-notice


I know nothing about laws in other states. I addressed only NC requirements.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> You need a federal firearms license to be* a dealer*. There is no ambiguity in that.
> 
> Even if 0bama does this it will be repealed. He'll probably do it as he enjoys armed protection for the rest of his life.


There are also laws which define what "dealer" means, and whether or not a license is required. 

There's no ambiguity there either.

Having a license doesn't make you a "dealer" but being a "dealer" means you need a license


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
> 
> Are they mistaken?


They are less than honest calling it a "gunshow loophole" since it's the same Federal law that applies to all private sales.

They just created an evil sounding buzzword for the gullible


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are also laws which define what "dealer" means, and whether or not a license is required.
> 
> There's no ambiguity there either.
> 
> Having a license doesn't make you a "dealer" but being a "dealer" means you need a license


If those guidelines are hard-coded in law then Obama can't get around it with an EO. The entire premise of Obama's plan centers around the definition of a dealer being ambiguous.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It always circles back to the same old erroneous assumption - that people who intend to use guns for criminal activity will follow ANY law that is passed. All these laws do is restrict the rights of the huge majority of gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. 

That term "gun show loophole" is pure wordsmithing, intentionally giving the false but alarming impression that all the vendors at all the gun shows are selling willy nilly to anyone and everyone who "shows them the money". Kinda like the term "factory farming", there is really no such definable thing but the verbiage itself gives a negative impression - just as intended. 

If you want to call it what it is, call it "private sales". Sales between individuals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If those guidelines are hard-coded in law then Obama can't get around it with an EO. The entire premise of Obama's plan centers around the definition of a dealer being ambiguous.


All his plans center on ignorance:




> The term "dealer" means (A) any person *engaged in the business of *selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.


18 U.S.C. Â§ 921 : US Code - Section 921: Definitions - 

See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921#sthash.TpYeONOy.dpuf




> The term "*engaged in the business*" means - (A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured; (B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured; (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term *shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;* (D)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All his plans center on ignorance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obama has to expect lawsuits. Everyone will get their day in court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Obama has to expect lawsuits. Everyone will get their day in court.


There won't be any suits because it's all just talk.
He throws these things out to see if the public will cheer him on.

Congress won't touch gun control in an election year, and people are getting tired of his endless EO's


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

This was in the news about a month ago. An area lawmaker and a area brick and mortar store dealer both said background checks are performed at the gun shows utilizing the resources and networks of the local dealers in attendance.

I shopped at a gun show in 2006 looking for ammo deals shortly after a show had an accidental discharge situation and they required walk ins to submit carry in firearms to be inspected, zip tied in unloaded and open chamber condition and run against the hot list database.

Any weapons sold at the show if sold to those capable of proper background check same day sale had their purchase zip tied also. Individual to individual sales had to be processed with a licensed dealer at the show and if the buyer wasn't qualified for background check, buy and walk check out, the dealer set up shipment to a dealer in their home area to properly perform the sale.

Even ammunition sales at the show were I.D checked and the ammo zip tied.

That gun show had better sales security than the Fast and Furious "show".

A couple weeks after that zip tied gun show a number of long gun sellers at area flea markets were busted for selling stolen rifles, shotguns and even some handguns.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If those guidelines are hard-coded in law then Obama can't get around it with an EO. The entire premise of Obama's plan centers around the definition of a dealer being ambiguous.


What does a law mean to Obama?


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Every gun I've ever bought at a gun show had to have the paperwork and background check.
> The gun show loophole is nothing but another lie from the left, it doesn't exist.
> It's just another Obama lie to fool the stupid, and they are obligingly fooled again.


Well, then you ought to come over here...our gun shows have both FFL dealers and private sellers. buying from a private seller at a gun show does not require paperwork. Cash and carry, just like meeting him in a parking lot from an online ad.

Many private sellers collections rival the dealers.

One private seller had around 50 handguns displayed, and I watched people buy them all day.

I was one of the guys who zip-tied all the firearms coming in, so I was there for the whole show.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> One private seller had around 50 handguns displayed, and I watched people buy them all day.


It's highly likely he's selling those guns illegally


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TraderBob said:


> Well, then you ought to come over here...our gun shows have both FFL dealers and private sellers. buying from a private seller at a gun show does not require paperwork. Cash and carry, just like meeting him in a parking lot from an online ad.
> 
> Many private sellers collections rival the dealers.
> 
> ...


We have private sellers too, and they have agreements with the nearby dealers to do the paperwork
I've bought a lot...a lot of guns at gun shows, and I've filled out the papers on every one


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's highly likely he's selling those guns illegally


Most gun show organizers are pretty careful
They know the Obamas, Bloombergs and other thieves are trying to take our rights and they don't want to give them any more excuses to steal from us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Most gun show organizers are pretty careful
> They know the Obamas, Bloombergs and other thieves are trying to take our rights and they don't want to give them any more excuses to steal from us.


It doesn't sound like they are being careful if a "private" seller has 50 guns on display, and he doesn't have an FFL


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't sound like they are being careful if a "private" seller has 50 guns on display, and he doesn't have an FFL


Do you know that to be a fact?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> It would probably be a big surprise to learn that you can legally build and own your own muzzle loading cannon or a gatling gun , both very effective when faced with an superior force intending to do you harm.



Retired machinist neighbor built this one. Took him couple years, working off original blueprints from the Patent Office, it's about as near a perfect copy of a factory original as you can get ! Real work of art.




















Then ANOTHER guy up the road from us builds the AA12....a fully automatic 12ga shotgun.....VERY fun to shoot.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

TnAndy said:


> Retired machinist neighbor built this one. Took him couple years, working off original blueprints from the Patent Office, it's about as near a perfect copy of a factory original as you can get ! Real work of art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My first boss in the machine trade had a cool shooting range in his back property with armor plate targets and a big berm behind it. The targets swung on a horizontal pipe so they would naturally deflect downward.
Safety first.
Pretty neat to get paid to work on his own mini cannon. It would launch a filled Coors can a good 1/4 mile or more.................:runforhills:


It's humorous to listen to people say, "When we pass this law, you'll have to give up your guns, or else!"

They don't ever really think about all the consequences that follow "or else" do they?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Do you know that to be a fact?


I know that's what was stated.
If he wasn't doing background checks and has an FFL it was illegal.

If he sells that many guns on a regular basis, and doesn't have the FFL, that is also likely illegal.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's highly likely he's selling those guns illegally


I know collectors with far more handguns than that in this area. He wasn't selling them illegally. This gentleman is well known here.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know that's what was stated.
> If he wasn't doing background checks and has an FFL it was illegal.
> 
> If he sells that many guns on a regular basis, and doesn't have the FFL, that is also likely illegal.


Private collector, no FFL..
Show me a limit on how many he can buy or sell, if it isn't done as a business.

I'm just curious why you think it would be, or seem to be so against it?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know that's what was stated.
> If he wasn't doing background checks and has an FFL it was illegal.
> 
> If he sells that many guns on a regular basis, and doesn't have the FFL, that is also likely illegal.





TraderBob said:


> Private collector, no FFL..
> Show me a limit on how many he can buy or sell, if it isn't done as a business.
> 
> I'm just curious why you think it would be, or seem to be so against it?


No FFL, no background check required.
FFL holder, it depends on whether it was from his personal collection or not.
Personal, not required, business, yes.
The criteria on whether it's personal or not is a matter of time, not numbers.
1 year is the rule.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-can-licensee-maintain-personal-collection-firearms


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Not to change the subject, just a piece of information. Owning more then 20 firearms in New York is a class E felony. Many people do, and the law is not enforced, but it is on the books.
Don't assume that what someone does is legal just because they do it in the open or act out of ignorance of the law.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> Currently, in New York, according to Heir Cuomo's S.A.F.E. act, for firearms to be transferred either given or sold from one person to another, it has to be done through a firearms dealer and subject to a background check. If you are shooting with me on the trap range and you would like to try my gun I would also have to have a background check done on you before I could hand my shotgun to you. If we are hunting together and you would like to borrow a handful of .22's from me, it would also require a background check. If I own what is currently called an "assault rifle" it has to be registered with the State and can not be transferred to anyone. Upon my death it must be surrendered to the State.
> 
> How do honest firearm owners deal with this draconian law?
> 
> ...


Excellent post. That's exactly how it works. When laws get too abrasive, people learn to ignore them. We have pretty restrictive gun transfer laws here but it's not unusual to see a gun or 2 for sale at a yard sale, no questions asked. Overbearing laws lead to ignored laws. Look at the lawbreaking in 3rd world countries (which we are becoming).


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Obama is just another dictator wanabe who doesn't know, or, ignores what the phrase "Shall not be infringed" means. Only the ignorant and stupid cheer him on, about anything. What is frightening is that a near, or, slight majority of American voters are deeply stupid and/or ignorant.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Dealers at gun shows do have an FFL.


Not true.. A person like myself that just has a lot of guns and parts can buy a table and sell their wares at many gun shows. Many shows do no require you to have an FFL to buy a table. The last gun I bought at a gun show came from a guy with a table even though he wasn't an FFL dealer.

I am not for what Obama is trying to do, BUT, in many states I have lived in, if you sold more than say 10 cars a year, you had to get a dealers license or be fined for selling more than the state allowed.. 

I could see how that could also be a requirement for selling x number of guns a year.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Every gun I've ever bought at a gun show had to have the paperwork and background check.
> The gun show loophole is nothing but another lie from the left, it doesn't exist.
> It's just another Obama lie to fool the stupid, and they are obligingly fooled again.


See my above post.. I have three guns that I've bought at shows that didn't require paperwork because they were considered private sales between private individuals.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's highly likely he's selling those guns illegally


Not necessarily.. If collecting and trading is his hobby, and if he's not buying guns with the express intent of reselling, then he's not considered a dealer. The guy may be trying to sell off part of his collection to raise funds for a single large purchase or similar.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Not necessarily.. If collecting and trading is his hobby, and if he's not buying guns with the express intent of reselling, then he's not considered a dealer. The guy may be trying to sell off part of his collection to raise funds for a single large purchase or similar.


I said "if he sells that many *on a regular basis*"
That is beyond just "collecting and trading"


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I said "if he sells that many *on a regular basis*"
> That is beyond just "collecting and trading"


People who "collect", some of them REALLY collect! Then they sell specimens when they acquire a better one, or to finance the purchase of something really special, etc. Or they lose interest in their Garand collection and start collecting Colts, so that takes a lot of buying and selling, etc. All kinds of reasons for individuals to buy and sell in quantity but not be in it for profit, as a business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> People who "collect", some of them REALLY collect! Then they sell specimens when they acquire a better one, or to finance the purchase of something really special, etc. Or they lose interest in their Garand collection and start collecting Colts, so that takes a lot of buying and selling, etc. All kinds of reasons for individuals to buy and sell in quantity but not be in it for profit, as a business.


I realize all that, but it has nothing to do with *what I really said*
I'd bet most anything he wasn't selling "collectibles"


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize all that, but it has nothing to do with *what I really said*
> I'd bet most anything he wasn't selling "collectibles"


You don't get to define what "collectibles" are for everyone else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> You don't get to define what "collectibles" are for everyone else.


Isn't that what you just did, talking about Garands and Colts?
I *suspect* the guy was selling run of the mill handguns.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't that what you just did, talking about Garands and Colts?
> I *suspect* the guy was selling run of the mill handguns.



What you consider run of the mill, may be a priceless collectable I was needing to fill out my collection. Pretty hard to define someone else's idea of collectible.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't that what you just did, talking about Garands and Colts?
> I *suspect* the guy was selling run of the mill handguns.


I used them as examples, nothing I wrote defined or limited what a "collection" is for someone else. 

I think the guy at the gun show was selling his Nunya collection.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

coolrunnin said:


> What you consider run of the mill, may be a priceless collectable I was needing to fill out my collection. Pretty hard to define someone else's idea of collectible.


This is why restrictive gun regulations are coming. You'll either regulate yourselves or face regulation by the government. Playing word games about what might be a collectible firearm isn't meaningful regulation.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> This is why restrictive gun regulations are coming. You'll either regulate yourselves or face regulation by the government. Playing word games about what might be a collectible isn't meaningful regulation.


I'd be more worried about what the gov't will will face when that time comes.
Know what I mean?:heh:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I'd be more worried about what the gov't will will face when that time comes.
> Know what I mean?:heh:


I hope that Americans gun owners are fundamentally law abiding.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I hope that Americans gun owners are fundamentally law abiding.


 I hope that the Government is fundamentally law abiding. If they are, the scenario that Farmerbrown eluded to, will not become necessary.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> This is why restrictive gun regulations are coming. You'll either regulate yourselves or face regulation by the government. Playing word games about what might be a collectible firearm isn't meaningful regulation.


Restrictive gun regulations aren't "coming" they are already here. And they aren't any more effective than any other "restrictive" law.

We have "restrictive" drug laws and have spent billions on enforcement - we still have illegal drugs everywhere. I have to show ID now to buy my preferred cold medicine, and my allergy-plagued in-laws have to get a friend to buy their OTC meds because they go over the limit as a family - yet there is still meth everywhere. So how are those "restrictive" laws workin' out?

It is a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money to write laws that are so restrictive and unrealistic as to be unenforceable, like the New York example given earlier. 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. More and more gun laws is a good example of that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I hope that the Government is fundamentally law abiding. If they are, the scenario that Farmerbrown eluded to, will not become necessary.


If the government were law abiding no one would be required to hold a cc permit, or have to register any gun, or other military type weapon. Fully automatic firearms would be considered a legitimate legal firearm for any law abiding citizen to own, buy or sell anytime they wish. But alas, our government does not play by the rules that were established to protect the citizen from them. They choose to ignore the very basics of our Constitution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I hope that the Government is fundamentally law abiding. If they are, the scenario that Farmerbrown eluded to, will not become necessary.


Is the possibility of general anarchy by the gun owner community really the message you want to send?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I hope that Americans gun owners are fundamentally law abiding.


I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of American gun owners are law abiding, even when those laws are illegal at their source. We fill out the paperwork, we register guns purchased from dealers, we rarely carry concealed without the permits.... all of which are illegal laws, (shall not be infringed) but we abide by them anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Is the possibility of general anarchy by the gun owner community really the message you want to send?


Nope, but the restoration of our country to what the founding fathers intended wouldnt be all bad. Not anarchy at all, just having the government operate within the limits of the Constitution. Remember why the founders wrote that set of rules? They had lived under an out of control government and didnt like it, didnt like it enough they all were willing to stick their heads in a noose if need be to get shed of it. Were they seeking anarchy? No, they wanted a limited government that would not over reach the powers granted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> What you consider run of the mill, may be a priceless collectable I was needing to fill out my collection. Pretty *hard to define* someone else's idea of collectible.


No, it's not
It's easy to define "run of the mill":



> run-of-the-mill
> ADJECTIVE
> lacking unusual or special aspects; ordinary:





> MO_cows
> I used them as examples, *nothing I wrote* defined or limited what a "collection" is for someone else.
> 
> I think the guy at the gun show was selling his Nunya collection.


Nothing you wrote had anything to do with what I *really* said either :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'd be more worried about what the gov't will will face when that time comes.
> *Know what I mean?*:heh:


More internet whining?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

You said you "suspected" he was not legal. But you weren't there, no photos were posted, just an offhand comment made and yet you latched onto it like a pit bull. If he was selling illegally, he was playing with fire and sooner or later will get burned. If not, it's nobody's business but his. 

Let it go BFF, let it go! You'll live longer!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Is the *possibility of general anarchy* by the gun owner community really the message you want to send?


That's the message in the Constitution.
It's playing out in NY as we speak


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> You said you "suspected" he was not legal. But you weren't there, no photos were posted, just an offhand comment made and yet *you latched onto it like a pit bull. * If he was selling illegally, he was playing with fire and sooner or later will get burned. If not, it's nobody's business but his.
> 
> Let it go BFF, let it go! You'll live longer!


I made a simple comment, and then replied to later comments directed towards me.

Isn't that what forums are for?



> You said you "suspected" he was not legal.


No, that isn't what I said.
Maybe you should "let it go" if you can't be more accurate


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More internet whining?



Nope.
*Warning*, not whining.



Nevada said:


> I hope that Americans gun owners are fundamentally law abiding.


They are.



Farmerga said:


> I hope that the Government is fundamentally law abiding. If they are, the scenario that Farmerbrown eluded to, will not become necessary.





Nevada said:


> Is the possibility of general anarchy by the gun owner community really the message you want to send?



Yep.

It may not be considered wise by some, but I've never been comfortable in taking action without giving a warning first.
Call me old fashioned, but I figure if you've been warned and decide to go ahead anyway, you deserve what you've got coming and I sleep better knowing you were well aware of the consequences.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I know that in Nevada I can sell to another Nevada resident, but if I sell to a resident of another state it has to go through a FFL.


the sale doesn't need to go through a FFL, the gun just needs to be shipped to a FFL holder where the buyer can pick it up or...

Cost to do this is about $35.00


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

This year I purchased a rifle from an out of state firearms dealer. I had to have it shipped to a local FFL dealer and have him perform a background check before I could receive it. I see this as a pain, and an infringement of my Constitutional rights. A friend of mine has got his young cousin into hunting. The kid saved his money from a summer job and my friend took him to Dicks and bought him his very first shotgun. This is a story that is played out everywhere across the country. Unfortunately he broke the law. The purchase is now considered a "straw" purchase. That's illegal. He underwent a background check, but the recipient (his cousin) did not. That's illegal. He gave a firearm to someone under the age of 18. That's illegal. Im sure that here in the Great Socialist State Of New York many other charges could also be levied against him ad nauseum. All because he wanted to take the kid squirrel hunting.
Right now my friend has joined the ranks of the New York State honest citizens that have not yet been prosecuted for their outrageous violation of some stupid Draconian law club.

We meet every other tuesday. Get there early, the stadiums fill up fast.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I hope that Americans gun owners are fundamentally law abiding.


Isn't the 2nd amendment a law?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> This year I purchased a rifle from an out of state firearms dealer. I had to have it shipped to a local FFL dealer and have him perform a background check before I could receive it. I see this as a pain, and an infringement of my Constitutional rights. A friend of mine has got his young cousin into hunting. The kid saved his money from a summer job and my friend took him to Dicks and bought him his very first shotgun. This is a story that is played out everywhere across the country. Unfortunately he broke the law. The purchase is now considered a "straw" purchase. That's illegal. He underwent a background check, but the recipient (his cousin) did not. That's illegal. He gave a firearm to someone under the age of 18. That's illegal. Im sure that here in the Great Socialist State Of New York many other charges could also be levied against him ad nauseum. All because he wanted to take the kid squirrel hunting.
> Right now my friend has joined the ranks of the New York State honest citizens that have not yet been prosecuted for their outrageous violation of some stupid Draconian law club.
> 
> We meet every other tuesday. Get there early, the stadiums fill up fast.



Not so fast........this is the internet and things last forever. 

It would be better and law abiding if he made this purchase himself, keeps the shotgun at HIS house and let's his cousin borrow it when they go hunting, on the premise that when he turns 18, it's his.
  
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.


But you're right, under the previous circumstances, being several firearm charges, he could likely end up a convicted felon.......for life.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Simply allowing the kid to "borrow" his own gun is a violation of the SAFE act.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Simply allowing the kid to "borrow" his own gun is a violation of the SAFE act.


Actually, from what I read of the SAFE act, that's not true, and I can show you where that is in the law, if you'd like to pass it along to him.
Did you "hear" that or read it in the law?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If a firearm is given to anyone, a background check must be done first. The law has many ambiguous interpretations. It was hastily crafted and passed. We are currently under SAFE act II. This requires a background check for the purchase of ammunition. Unfortunately for our Democratic masters in Albany, the State Police do not have the system set up yet. However the money to do so was part of the last budget passed.

The Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) can give you a better understanding of the law then I can here.

Yeah, I'm a member. I suggest all New Yorkers join.


----------



## alabamared (May 23, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Isn't the 2nd amendment a law?


 No, the 2nd Amendment is NOT a law. It is an Unalienable Right.
âUnalienable rightsâ are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence, and he was seconded by James Madison through the Bill of Rights. 
A âcentral componentâ of our âunalienable rightsâ is the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

alabamared said:


> No, the 2nd Amendment is NOT a law. It is an Unalienable Right.
> &#8220;Unalienable rights&#8221; are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence, and he was seconded by James Madison through the Bill of Rights.
> A &#8220;central component&#8221; of our &#8220;unalienable rights&#8221; is the right to keep and bear arms.


1. The 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant all citizens the right to own a gun.
2. No right is without limitation, not even the right to free speech.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> If a firearm is given to anyone, a background check must be done first. The law has many ambiguous interpretations. It was hastily crafted and passed. We are currently under SAFE act II. This requires a background check for the purchase of ammunition. Unfortunately for our Democratic masters in Albany, the State Police do not have the system set up yet. However the money to do so was part of the last budget passed.
> 
> The Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) can give you a better understanding of the law then I can here.
> 
> Yeah, I'm a member. I suggest all New Yorkers join.


That's why I asked if you heard it or read it in the law.
SCOPE was one of the several sites I looked at while tracking down the latest version of the SAFE act.

In the first version the exclusion for immediate family was so strict it forgot to mention "parents" so it made a son giving his father a shotgun illegal.
I found the new amendment but haven't verified it made it was passed, but it expanded the exclusion to blood relatives and lists nieces, nephews, etc.
A cousin would be aunt or uncle's son and a son-to his father-to his sister/brother-to their son would be legal.
A long way around a stupid law, I get that it's stupid, but he would be legal.
Another section talks about ages of possession.
In it, it refers several times to USC ch. 18, which is the federal law on firearm restrictions.
It lists the 21 age in NY for a handgun which is above the fed limit of 18, with the exclusion for military.
Then, when referring to the family transfer, it states that as long as you are reasonably certain the family member is under no federal restriction of USC ch.18, the transfer is legal under the SAFE act and no background check is required.
Know what the federal age restriction is on a shotgun?
There isn't one.

So, I agree with you about the ambiguities, I saw many, but if that law is the only reason he doesn't want to do that, he can rest easy, he's not in danger of going to jail.

The sections are about 3/4 of the way down in the text of it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> 1. The 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant all citizens the right to own a gun.
> 2. No right is without limitation, not even the right to free speech.


You might want to read Heller vs. D.C. then.
The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment of the 2nd amendment.
Even Justice Breyer who dissented said the case could open the door to felons owning a firearm. The argument of "longstanding tradition" by Scalia and others is very weak, considering the age of the amendment and how recent the 1968 Act was.

I will agree with you on two things though. It does NOT say "citizen".
It says "the people". They are NOT the same.
An extremely important point to those who know about the two terms and the intentional misinformation out there regarding the Bill of Rights.

Also there can be limitations put on them, but you should know THOSE limits as well.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> That's why I asked if you heard it or read it in the law.
> SCOPE was one of the several sites I looked at while tracking down the latest version of the SAFE act.
> 
> In the first version the exclusion for immediate family was so strict it forgot to mention "parents" so it made a son giving his father a shotgun illegal.
> ...


Federal restriction and the SAFE act are two different things. I have not heard of any amendment to the Safe act. Anything that so far has changed the law was due to a court decision. So far all that happened is that we are now allowed 10 round magazines instead of the ascribed 7.
In NY you may not purchase a long arm until 18. You may not use a firearm until the age of 12. If under the age of 12 we must use air guns for shooting in hunter training.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

All critical comments about gun ownership should have to be approved by the NRA before being made public.
Take away my 2nd
I take away your 1st amendment rights.
You can still speak, you just need to register and provide all your personal information and get a permit first.
I don't think that is too much trouble for you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Is the possibility of general anarchy by the gun owner community really the message you want to send?


 
How does defending the Constitution of the United States rise to the level of anarchy?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> 1. The 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant all citizens the right to own a gun.
> 2. No right is without limitation, not even the right to free speech.


 
The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, it enumerates them. The right is inborn in The People" and the government cannot take that right away, if they try, it is the right and responsibility of The People to resist. 

Sure, one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but, there is no law banning the word "fire". To the same point, one cannot legally open fire in that same crowded theater, but, to ban any type of firearm goes against the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> the sale doesn't need to go through a FFL, the gun just needs to be shipped to a FFL holder where the buyer can pick it up or...
> 
> Cost to do this is about $35.00


You still have to fill out a 4473, prove you are legal to own a gun (or go through a background check)


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Federal restriction and the SAFE act are two different things. I have not heard of any amendment to the Safe act. Anything that so far has changed the law was due to a court decision. So far all that happened is that we are now allowed 10 round magazines instead of the ascribed 7.
> In NY you may not purchase a long arm until 18. You may not use a firearm until the age of 12. If under the age of 12 we must use air guns for shooting in hunter training.


Again, I encourage you to read the exact wording of the law itself, not take mine or anyone else's word for it.
The fact is the USC code chapter 18 on firearms is mentioned throughout the SAFE act as a reference for what is and isn't legal or whether the SAFE act supersedes it or not.
The age requirements is a case in point.
Also purchasing and possession and use are two different things in the eyes of the law. Your friend's cousin's parent can *purchase and own* the gun while allowing the use of it by the son. 
Several amendments have been made, as recently as a few months ago.

It sounds like my first suggestion to retain ownership by your friend, and give it to his cousin when he turns 18, is perfectly legal. Meanwhile, the youth can go hunting with him and use it. Not perfect, but perfectly legal.
I know it's none of NY's business what a hunter does with his gun as long as he isn't killing illegally, but I think he's "safe" doing it that way, lol.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Sorry, I have to disagree. The "immediate family" only applies to parent/child or siblings. A background check would be required. Any interpretation of the SAFE act has to be done with an extreme draconian view. The law is poorly written and the extreme is definitely possible. There are no "friendly Nazi's" in Albany.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree. The "immediate family" only applies to parent/child or siblings. A background check would be required. Any interpretation of the SAFE act has to be done with an extreme draconian view. The law is poorly written and the extreme is definitely possible. There are no "friendly Nazi's" in Albany.


No.
"Parent" was NOT included in the original version and why they amended it this year to all "blood relatives", and perhaps step-parents and children and adopted ones.
At least I saw the proposed amendment, but haven't taken the time to see if it was pased in the new version this summer.
And please, please,please read this law yourself. It CLEARLY says no background check between family members, I can copy and paste the text with the page and section # if you like.
This is why and how people get in a frenzy about new laws.
You've no doubt heard there's a fine to pay if you don't have health insurance?
Wrong.
I don't have it, I don't pay a fine and I can show anyone the section of the law and how to legally avoid paying it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Read the law. Several times. I guess we question the provision of immediate family. The law states spouses, children and stepchildren. Like I said, the law is very ambiguous and subject to much interpretation. Unfortunately that interpretation is made by a government that wishes to disarm its citizens. to many cases have been filed against citizens by the government of New York due to THEIR interpretation.
I think we can agree that the law is overzealous and infringes on the rights of law abiding people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Read the law. Several times. I guess we question the provision of immediate family. The law states spouses, children and stepchildren. Like I said, the law is very ambiguous and subject to much interpretation. Unfortunately that interpretation is made by a government that wishes to disarm its citizens. to many cases have been filed against citizens by the government of New York due to THEIR interpretation.
> I think we can agree that the law is overzealous and infringes on the rights of law abiding people.


Oh yes.
I'm going to retract some of what I said before, because I think I was wrong. I read the thing again and couldn't find the private exemption I thought I'd seen written.
I do think there's a legal way to "lend" him the gun, but not sell or give it without a background check.
The amendment on blood relatives I don't think has passed this year.
It is confusing and unneeded, I wasn't wrong about that!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but the restoration of our country to what the founding fathers intended wouldnt be all bad. Not anarchy at all, just having the government operate within the limits of the Constitution. Remember why the founders wrote that set of rules? They had lived under an out of control government and didnt like it, didnt like it enough they all were willing to stick their heads in a noose if need be to get shed of it. Were they seeking anarchy? No, they wanted a limited government that would not over reach the powers granted.


Post of the day award.


----------

