Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting

Any of those responses are easily verified. Do you have credit card records? Memberships at gun clubs?

Remember, perjury is a crime too.
Conspiracy is a crime as well.
For perjury and conspiracy I don't need to convict of the underlying crime. I only need show intent and action.

If the gun was transferred legally the current owner has no problem.
If the gun was NOT transferred legally the current owner has no problem.

The previous owner may have a problem if no check was performed or if the check came back negative.

Of course, the former owner could claim that the gun was stolen which puts you right in the hotseat.

 

Are you kidding?
According to the left, just having the guns is probable cause for a search.

 

I have two firearms, a shotgun and a bolt action rifle, that I bought from contacts on Armslist. I paid cash for both. One seller required a bill of sale. The other did not. Both were purchased prior to July 1, 2013 when the UBC went into effect in Colorado.

The onus is on the police and prosecution to prove that a crime was committed. Barring that proof, there is no reason for me to be detained, arrest or prosecuted.

 

Owner: I have no idea how he acquired my gun. I didn't know it was missing; thanks for finding it....

 

Since so few firearms are actually registered, how would law enforcement be able to prove either when or how the firearms were purchased, if each of them were acquired through private transactions. If they were originally sold more than twenty years ago, all sales records attached to the serial numbers at the original point of sale would be destroyed.

How will law enforcement be able to verify what did or did not occur? What are the mechanics that would allow them to achieve such a verification?

 

If that is what you think our position is, then the position of stupidity is held by you and you alone; or, it would be, if that was an honest assessment of your position. Instead, your position is intellectually dishonest, which is far worse an indictment of your character than a simple question of your intelligence or lack thereof.

The Constitution specifically protects the right of American citizens to be armed. Laws pushed by gun control advocates don't respect or acknowledge that right, and don't have any beneficial effect upon crime/violence rates. We point that out, and rubbish like you spouted above is the response.

Come up with a real, factually based argument, and stop wasting our time.

 

If you can prove you made the acquisition prior to the requirement becoming enforceable you have no problem
If not...

 

I don't have to prove anything. I can't prove it, but the State can't disprove it. The onus is on the State to prove otherwise.

That lack of proof on the part of the state is why the laws aren't enforceable.

 

And if the owner has several guns "missing?"

I read somewhere about a guy who was arrested after having an average of 4 guns per month come up "missing."

Seems he's a licensed dealer who was selling guns on the black market and reporting them as stolen.

 

No reason to ask since all guns are owned by law abiding citizens who would never ever ever attempt to transfer ownership off their firearm without following the law.

Of course, that doesn't explain how the bad guys end up with all these guns. Must be magic.

 

Do you have a driver's license?
Proof of insurance?

If you get stopped tell the officer you don't have to prove whether or not you have a license.
Be sure to have someone ready with your bail.

 

We live in a society based on individual liberty and personal freedom. Some people choose to abuse the opportunities such a society creates by committing crimes.

Criminals acquire guns through all kinds of chicanery and nefarious acts. Guns get smuggled into the country (remember Leland Yee, the Democratic lawmaker in California who was arrested for facilitating the smuggling of military grade AK-47s?), they get stolen from police and military depots, they get stolen from private parties, and they pay people with clean records to buy them from legal sources.

No magic, just the ordinary machinations of our criminal underclass.

 

Two things:
- The anti-gun left can only argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, dishonesty and/or ignorance, precluding any fact-based argument
- The objective in the Internet Troll, boiled down, is to waste your time.

 

Is it your position that after the passing of a UBC, such as HB13-1229 that was passed in Colorado, that if I do not have proof that every firearm in my possession was acquired with a background check or was acquired prior to the law date, even those that did not require either background checks or any other proof of transfer that I'm subject to arrest simply for that lack of proof?

 

Still feeding the troll?

 

No, that is not true.

You and another forum member keep posting that tripe and accusing others of that position.

What has been stated is;

Gun control cannot in any substantial way reduce or in any way prevent crime, and since criminals do not obey laws, why increase the restrictions on Law abiding citizens ?

Nobody here has ever advocated non prosecution of criminal cases when in fact many prosecutors routinely drop major charges and refuse to prosecute and make deals with those criminals and release them early into society to re-offend.

Truth is Gun control presently is here, and here to stay, and nobody is going to make it go away, we need better prosecution and penalties of career criminals.

 

Would you care for citations of law enforcement personnel who have been caught in the act of knowingly trafficking firearms, including duty weapons, to known criminals?

 

The difference is that laws pertaining to the crimes of rape, drug use, and bank robbery, is that they can indeed be enforced, and they actually are enforced. Firearm-related restrictions, however, are routinely dropped in court proceedings, and charges are rarely ever faced. It is exceptionally rare for anyone to ever actually be convicted of a firearm-related offense, either at the state or the federal level. Thus meaning any firearm-related restriction codified into law will not be used, and thus have no reason to justify its basic existence.

 

Please, allow me to rephrase that for you:

Making robbery illegal has no substantive effect on preventing robberies therefore we should eliminate those laws as they are an unnecessary burden on the non-robbing citizen.

That is your argument. It is a stupid argument. It is a moronic argument. But it is your argument. Change it or live with it.

 

Really?

Name a single rape, robbery, or drug use that was prevented because it was illegal.

 

So you're saying that there are gun owners who are not law abiding citizens?

Well gee. We should pass some laws so that when those gun owners who are not law abiding citizens break the law they can be punished.

Geez.

 

The result of a UBC is that current actions that do not represent risks or affronts to society will become crimes only because you've created a law making them crimes, as TD had mentioned, a malum prohibitum law.

If the desired goal is to lower the number of guns sold/transferred from good guys to bad guys, the easiest way is to open up NICS to private sellers and buyers. There is no need to criminalize transfers between good guys. Transfers between bad guys already have sufficient laws in place to prosecute both sides.

 

The act of robbery, however, is already illegal. Just as is the possession of a firearm by a felon, or other prohibited individual. The difference, however, is that there are no efforts underway to try and further restrict various, everyday activities on the basis that they somehow facilitate the act of robbery.

Such cannot be done, because such is not how things work. However individuals are regularly prosecuted when they are caught for committing such acts. Firearm-related offenses, however, are almost never prosecuted. Arrests are certainly made, but charges are routinely dropped, even when the one arrested cannot legally possess a firearm. The mere possession is a crime in itself, but this is never pursued in a court of law.

Recently a licensed firearms owner in the stat of Illinois was convicted on four counts of knowingly trafficking firearms to prohibited individuals, one of whom went on to murder a law enforcement officer with said firearm. The individual who knowingly trafficked the firearms was facing at least forty years in prison for such. Instead they were sentenced to nothing more than one year of probation, and community service.

If the laws that already exist are not going to be enforced, there is no reason to justify the creation of new laws.

What is being said, is that the proposal is devoid of a legitimate reason for even being considered as a possibility. The public is ignoring the mandate in states where it is in lace, law enforcement officers have stated that they will not enforce the mandate, and now you have law enforcement officers committing the same act that the mandate supposedly prohibits.

What is simply not understood, is the fact that it is a lawless situation. When law enforcement states that they will not enforce a law because it is impossible to do such, what is has is ultimately nothing at all.

 

You are raising false specious arguments.
Those crimes are illegal, and those that commit them are prosecuted.

Gun laws already are in place to prevent those disqualified from owning firearms from purchasing them from gun stores.

If they purchase them on the black market, and are caught in illegal posession / CCW of firearms, they are prosecuted, in theory.

Your allegations are groundless and without foundation.

 

These are YOUR arguments.

We cannot stop all rapes so we should eliminate rape laws that are a burden on non-raping citizens.
We cannot stop all bank robberies so we should eliminate all bank robbery laws because they are a burden on the non-bank robbing citizen.
We cannot stop all illegal firearms transfers so we should eliminate those laws because they are a burden on the "law abiding" gun owner.

That's your argument and I'm going to keep giving it to you till you puke on it.