MSNBC Gun Poll blows up in their face

[Fau Teixeira]

You have no clue what concepts came up or when.

Other than reading the founding father's thoughts about the place of militias and arms in their own writings, i have no idea .. you're right.

[Fau Teixeira]

Your car got stolen and was involved in a fiery school bus crash which killed 30 children and the bus driver. YOU GO TO JAIL. Your gas grill got stolen and the thief used it to host a Super Bowl party for 50 retarded invalid children. The grill blows up and they all die. YOU GO TO JAIL. The weird kid on Ritalin down the street who rarely leaves the house steals your "As Seen on TV" Ginsu steak knives and proceeds to go to a daycare center and stabs 25 toddlers to death. YOU GO TO JAIL.

The problem with your argument is that any inanimate object can kill people. An AR15 is no more dangerous than a steak knife or an automobile. They all take a deliberate conscience actions to kill someone, whether by mistake or not.

If you pour someone a drink and they go onto kill someone while driving drunk.. you can go to jail.

what happened to personal responsibility and accountability? if you want a gun .. be responsible for it

[pondwater]

If you pour someone a drink and they go onto kill someone while driving drunk.. you can go to jail.

what happened to personal responsibility and accountability? if you want a gun .. be responsible for it

So you're saying that if a thief steals my Beretta and kills someone it's my fault? They steal and kill and it's my fault? LMFAO, that's the dumbest thing I've heard this month. And you guys make fun of Trump, that's rich.......

[BuccaneerBrad]

If you pour someone a drink and they go onto kill someone while driving drunk.. you can go to jail.

Actually, you can't go to jail for that (unless said person is under 21) but you can be sued

[Spider-Dan]

Two problems with that. No one that matters is seriously discussing banning/regulating ALL semi auto firearms. Anyone who does will never be elected.

How do you think we got from the 1960s, when Governor Ronald Reagan passed a law (WITH NRA SUPPORT!) prohibiting people from carrying any loaded weapon in public, to today where you guys are insisting that we have a Constitutional right to carry a weapon with a 100-round magazine and a bump stock?

The answer is political activism and pushing the bounds.  40 years ago, people like you embarked on a decades-long quest to completely deregulate firearms, and "Anyone who says stuff like that will never be elected" didn't stop you.  The only way to turn the tide is to flip the script.

Firearms transferred across state lines must be transferred through a FFL holder before a purchaser/friend could take possession.

Except that's not what we are talking about.  We are talking about a Chicago resident transporting themselves across the IN state line to buy a gun, in person, from another private party (which requires no background check and therefore, no verification of IN residency), at which point they can transport themselves and their new guns back across the state line.  So there is no "transfer of ownership across state lines," and the statute you cited is inapplicable.

This works because of the lax gun laws in the state of Indiana, which allow a private party to sell a gun without performing a background check to verify (among other things) the state of residency of the buyer.  This is not the case in, say, IL.

[Fau Teixeira]

So you're saying that if a thief steals my Beretta and kills someone it's my fault? They steal and kill and it's my fault?

Yes, that's exactly what i would like to see. If you own a gun it should be your responsibility to keep it safely stored. If you can't handle that level of responsibility you shouldn't own a gun. Your negligence isn't an excuse in my book.

[Phishfan]

Other than reading the founding father's thoughts about the place of militias and arms in their own writings, i have no idea .. you're right.

Well read a little more. It doesn't take long to find this quote,
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.", from Thomas Jefferson.

[Spider-Dan]

The word "freeman" is doing quite a bit of work in that sentence.  

Given that Jefferson clearly didn't believe that everyone should vote, it would be strange to interpret his statement as support for everyone bearing arms today.  I tend to think that Jefferson would be even more selective in regulating who can own a gun than most of the people participating in this conversation.

[Phishfan]

Thanks for taking up for someone else Spider but in your efforts you changed their position and the discussion at hand. The point has nothing to do with regulation. The statement was that individual ownership was never addressed which is clearly wrong by this quote. The second and most laughable part was that it was implied that Fau had read from the entirety of the founding father's writings, and his original statement implies he knew the writing of all national figures through the Civil War. I stand firmly that he has no idea.

[Fau Teixeira]

I read the federalist papers years ago. I've also read about the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. Individual right to bear arms wasn't even upheld by the supreme court until Heller  in 2008. Before then the concept of the 2nd amendment was tied into the establishment of state militias that were supposed to be a safeguard against an overreaching federal government. You'll find that in both hamilton and madison's own writings in fedralist 29 and 46.  It's fine if you think i'm talking out of my ass, i don't really care. But don't assume just because the NRA has drilled into pop culture that the 2nd means individual arms that it's always been the case. And the reason it became that way after the civil war was because a federal army had just crushed states militias. The fact is that hamilton thought that every "white male" should be armed and trained as part of the state militia and that the concept of an unregulated person having guns  to "fight a tyranical government" wasn't even thought about it was so absurd.

[pondwater]

Except that's not what we are talking about.  We are talking about a Chicago resident transporting themselves across the IN state line to buy a gun, in person, from another private party (which requires no background check and therefore, no verification of IN residency), at which point they can transport themselves and their new guns back across the state line.  So there is no "transfer of ownership across state lines," and the statute you cited is inapplicable.

This works because of the lax gun laws in the state of Indiana, which allow a private party to sell a gun without performing a background check to verify (among other things) the state of residency of the buyer.  This is not the case in, say, IL.

Wrong, a firearm purchased face to face by someone from another state has to be transferred through a FFL. State laws apply to intrastate sales. The feds control interstate sales. If a seller goes out of state to a buyer, then they must go through a FFL in the buyer's state for the transfer.

Furthermore, If a seller is shipping a firearm to someone out of state it has to be shipped to a FFL first. Sellers, are not required to go through an FFL for "shipping" firearms to an out of state FFL. The relevant statute and info is bolded below.

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State:
Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by
bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of
residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that
State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such
firearm in that State,
(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or
shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the
transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at
the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of
Sec. 478.96(c) and
(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm
obtained in conformity with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 478.30 and
478.97.

[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10493, Mar. 31, 1988]

§ 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business
entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That the provisions of this section:

(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm
to, or any acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm
under the laws of the State of his residence; and

(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.



478.97 - Loan or rental of firearms.(a) A licensee may lend or rent a firearm to any person for temporary use off the premises of the licensee for lawful sporting purposes: Provided, That the delivery of the firearm to such person is not prohibited by ? 478.99(b) or ? 478.99(c), the licensee complies with the requirements of ? 478.102, and the licensee records such loan or rental in the records required to be kept by him under Subpart H of this part.

(b) A club, association, or similar organization temporarily furnishing firearms (whether by loan, rental, or otherwise) to participants in a skeet, trap, target, or similar shooting activity for use at the time and place such activity is held does not, unattended by other circumstances, cause such club, association, or similar organization to be engaged in the business of a dealer in firearms or as engaging in firearms transactions. Therefore, licensing and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part pertaining to firearms transactions would not apply to this temporary furnishing of firearms for use on premises on which such an activity is conducted.

[T.D. ATF-415, 63 FR 58278, Oct. 29, 1998]

[Spider-Dan]

Wrong, a firearm purchased face to face by someone from another state has to be transferred through a FFL.

That is irrelevant in a transaction between private parties in IN, because there is no requirement for the seller to verify the state of residence of the buyer!  There is no requirement for background checks in IN for transactions between private buyers.

It's like you're saying that felons are not allowed to buy firearms; without a background check requirement, there's no way to know who is and isn't a felon, so you can sell to anyone.

Surely you've heard of this "gun show loophole" before?

[pondwater]

That is irrelevant in a transaction between private parties in IN, because there is no requirement for the seller to verify the state of residence of the buyer!  There is no requirement for background checks in IN for transactions between private buyers.

It's like you're saying that felons are not allowed to buy firearms; without a background check requirement, there's no way to know who is and isn't a felon, so you can sell to anyone.

Surely you've heard of this "gun show loophole" before?

You just don't get it. You are correct, there is no state requirement for background  checks for private party sales between two residents of the state. However, federal law preempts state law in relation to interstate transfer of ownership of firearms. I posted the relevant laws and statutes. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you. 

Also, whether the buyer and/or seller choose to comply with the law is a different story. And if they already aren't following the law, more regulations aren't going to work.

[Spider-Dan]

You are correct, there is no state requirement for background  checks for private party sales between two residents of the state.

Wrong.  In Indiana, there is no state OR FEDERAL requirement for background checks between ANY private parties, so there is no way to know what state your buyer is from, and therefore no way to enforce any restrictions on private party purchases from out-of-state buyers.

More to the point: a resident of Chicago can travel 10 minutes to the state of Indiana, and in a transaction in which the seller fulfills all legal obligations, buy as many guns as he pleases, then transport those guns back to Chicago and commit crimes.  Your choice to emphasize that (say) an armed robber also violated laws about transporting guns over state lines is... irrelevant?  As you like to say, criminals don't obey the law.

The point of contention here is that law-abiding gun sellers in Indiana are facilitating gun crime in Chicago, due to Indiana's lax gun laws.  That is why Chicago gun regulations aren't working.

[pondwater]

Wrong.  In Indiana, there is no state OR FEDERAL requirement for background checks between ANY private parties, so there is no way to know what state your buyer is from, and therefore no way to enforce any restrictions on private party purchases from out-of-state buyers.

More to the point: a resident of Chicago can travel 10 minutes to the state of Indiana, and in a transaction in which the seller fulfills all legal obligations, buy as many guns as he pleases, then transport those guns back to Chicago and commit crimes.  Your choice to emphasize that (say) an armed robber also violated laws about transporting guns over state lines is... irrelevant?  As you like to say, criminals don't obey the law.

Here, we can make this easy for you. You say that there are NO FEDERAL requirement for background checks on transfer of ownership of firearms across state lines.

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State

First you need to determine if this is a valid federal firearm statute or if I made it up out of thin air in order to win a debate with Spider-Dan on an obscure forum on the internet.

Second you need to figure out if federal firearm laws preempt state firearm laws.

Now that brings us to this part:

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State

Third you need to figure out what a Licensed FFL holder is required to do before transferring ownership of a firearm to an unlicensed individual.

Once you reconcile all of that verifiable info, you should have your answer. Easy peasy.

The point of contention here is that law-abiding gun sellers in Indiana are facilitating gun crime in Chicago, due to Indiana's lax gun laws.  That is why Chicago gun regulations aren't working.

No, the point of contention is that federal law is being broken by the buyer and/or seller when they transfer ownership of a firearm across state lines. Now again, I posted the relevant federal law. I've also held your hand and tried to help you comprehend the simple language of that law. In the words of Andy Dufresne, " How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate?" LMFAO...