TargetTalk

I think people will he just stockpiling more. There have been year over year increases in gun and ammo sales for the last 4 years and I don't see it slowing down anytime soon.

william wrote:I have never been privileged to witness such superhuman exercise of selective blindness.

Since Harlon Carter and the no-compromise crew have controlled the NRA, we have had Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Meanwhile:
1. At least two American citizens have been executed without trial by Air Force / CIA drone for expressing ideas distasteful to the government.
2. Hundreds if not thousands of prisoners - many if not most of them guuilty of nothing - have been tortured by American soldiers / spooks / contractors.
3. Hundreds if not thousands of no-knock warrants have been issued.
4. The war on drugs has wasted tens of billions of dollars and put more people in prison in the USA than in any other country on earth.
5. Aaron Swartz has been driven to suicide; Bradley Manning has been subjected to torture, and Julian Assange has been a virtual prisoner in an Ecuadorian embassy. All for no other reason than protecting OUR right to know.
6. State after state have so grotesquely gerrymandered themselves that "one person one vote" has become a bad joke.
7. Real wages for the majority of Americans has declined, and union organizing is suppressed. At the same time the percentage of the nations wealth / income controlled by the top 2% rises to the highest level since 1927.
8. America takes over industrial-world leadership in both income inequality and social immobility.
9. The TEA in Tea-Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," but they ignore the fact that federal income tax collections are the lowest since Harry Truman was president.

There's plenty more to think about... if thinking is what you're about. Meanwhile the ONE justification for gun ownership under the Second Amendment - protecting the rights of the people - vanishes along with all our other rights.

Hmmm, there could never be a tyrannical government in the US.

What is so bad about doing a background check to get a firearm? Someone really needs to explain this to me. Honestly you cannot expect me to believe that not doing a background check on someone before selling them a firearm is a bad idea. Honestly you have no problem registering your car with the government why would a firearm be any different?

Please help me understand your viewpoint. :)

The fear is that if background checks are done then the information could be saved then later used for registration and/or confiscation. The gun banners actually help propagate this fear. Is it a well founded fear I don't know, but I do see their point.

Also I haven't heard of car bans being talked about, and if you don't register your car its not a felony. They used the same silly argument up here in Canada. They also used the long gun registry for confiscation too. There was a particular firearm that was simply classed as a rifle, the authorities decided to reclassify it, it was black and scary. The owners received letters in the mail telling them that their property was now prohibited and they would need to turn them in or destroy them, so much for not using the registry for confiscation.

With the federal government building that monster data centre in Utah and their track record on abusing data that is in their control (when some of it shouldn't have been) makes the fear at least reasonable.

I don't think people have a problem with background checks - these are already done if you buy from an FFL. The proposals are just to beef them up with access to more data and whatnot.

The distinction is when check becomes registration. The FFL does a check, and then tells them what you bought. This means if they decide to ban x, it is a trivial matter to call up a list of who has one and go confiscate them, as happened in 1997 in the Uk when they took the pistols. They knew exactly who ahd what, and if you didn't hand them in, off-shore them or show evidence of selling them by the cutoff date then you got a knock on the door.

This currently can't be done on a national scale in the US. If the Police are tracing a person and knew they had a background check they could go to the dealer and inspect their sale records and find out what that person bought. On an individual paper-chasing exercise for a person of interest it's perfectly doable, but to compile a list of all sales across the country would need visits to every dealer, and a transcription of all their sales records, which just isn't feasible (unless the DoD agree to stripping off half a percent of their annual budget to fund it :rolleyes: Not a big ask, but I'm sure they object :D ).

Richard H wrote:Even the mental health issue side is full of dangerous paths. What exactly will be disqualifying mental issues?

This one bothers me. The current standard is "adjudicated mentally incompetent" meaning a judge had reviewed a prior action and ruled that the person was unable to handle their own affairs.

When that standard was defined in 1968, the process for getting someone "adjudicated mentally incompetent" was significantly shorter and easier than it is now. Any shorter, easier process for impacting another's life will be and frequently was perverted by people with bad motives. It happened too frequently back then and advocates for the rights of people with mental illnesses have made great strides in bringing some dignity to that population, including making it much more difficult to have someone "adjudicated mentally incompetent." Overall, this has been a good thing.

At the same time, publicly-funded (or any) mental health help is far from ubiquitously available, even for people who are recognized as troubled. I have a next door neighbor who will occasionally go into her backyard, fire a few shots into the ground, and go on a screaming tirade about how unfair her life is. The police have been there enough times that, unless I tell them there's someone outside bleeding (which hasn't happened yet, thank goodness), they won't even bother to do a drive-by. I am absolutely serious. It happened last week and I spoke to 911 twice and the responding officer once. The responding officer called me after my second call to 911 and then outright lied when he told me he had done a drive-by and seen nothing unusual. If he did the drive-by, it was in an invisible car since I had been sitting outside my front door since the first call to 911. 911 promised me they'd send someone to talk to me. Responder said he'd do another drive-by. After two more hours waiting (the substation is 5 minutes away), I went back to bed.

The point is, known mentally ill people are allowed to run around loose. That's not a bad thing since most of them are no threat to anyone and shouldn't be confined with as little concern for their rights as was the state of affairs in 1968.

But that also means that some statistically insignificant number will slip through the cracks and do something horrible. All it takes is one to give the media material to chew on for months.

I don't know how to solve this problem. Clearly, the disqualifying standard should be lowered but then we're back to the human element. Someone has to make the decision, make the report, and do so with perfect judgement.

If I had mental problems, liked to shoot, and knew the standard had been reduced from "adjudicated mentally incompetent" to something lesser, you better believe I would NOT seek treatment. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in that attitude.

Hemmers wrote:I don't think people have a problem with background checks - these are already done if you buy from an FFL. The proposals are just to beef them up with access to more data and whatnot.

The distinction is when check becomes registration. The FFL does a check, and then tells them what you bought. This means if they decide to ban x, it is a trivial matter to call up a list of who has one and go confiscate them, as happened in 1997 in the Uk when they took the pistols. They knew exactly who ahd what, and if you didn't hand them in, off-shore them or show evidence of selling them by the cutoff date then you got a knock on the door.

This currently can't be done on a national scale in the US.

As things currently stand, no, mostly because the secondary market of face-to-face sales means that attempting to compile a national registry from the background check data can only result in a database so full of errors that it's useless.

However, if all transfers required background checks, it would be a simple matter for the NICS data (which is supposed to be destroyed in a day or two) to be kept. Given a generation, the result would be a fairly accurate national gun registration database. There has been evidence in the past that NICS data was not being destroyed or not being destroyed timely. I have no doubt that there will be a small paragraph buried somewhere in any new legislation that allows that data to continue to live.

So what happens then? The same thing as when New York required assault rifle registration. They waited a few years, banned assault rifles, and then went knocking on the doors of the registered owners.

Since the primary movers and shakers behind gun control have never made a secret of the fact that their long term goal is complete disarmament of the population, I think it obvious that mandatory background checks, while no big deal in practice, are being proposed with the true intention of creating a de facto registration scheme to enable future confiscation.

Now, there is a way around this, I suppose. In Texas (How does it work, elsewhere? Please chime in, y'all.) if you have a concealed carry permit, you are considered to have already passed the background check and dealers can sell to you without making a call to the NICS. If that work-around were available nationwide (meaning that, in practice, CHLs must be available in every state about as easily as in Texas), I think only the truly hardcore would still oppose mandatory background checks on all transfers. Personally, I wouldn't squawk (much) about it and I'm about as absolutist on these things as it's possible to be.

Interesting post. Mind if I ask for a few clarifications?

william wrote:I have never been privileged to witness such superhuman exercise of selective blindness.

Who is being willfully blind to what? Gun owners to other problems? I don't think that follows; I was well aware of everything on your list.

william wrote:Since Harlon Carter and the no-compromise crew have controlled the NRA...

Why date from that event? Just a convenient reference point or is there some meaning that went right over my head?

william wrote:9. The TEA in Tea-Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," but they ignore the fact that federal income tax collections are the lowest since Harry Truman was president.

Sorry, but I have to go OT with a personal pet peeve - politicians who think we don't have enough money to run the government but fail to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service.

It takes 4-5 years to bring a Revenue Officer up to speed but, on average, they bring in far more money than is spent on them, including benefits. I've seen estimates indicating average multiples between 7 and 20 times their cost. Revenue Agents can have an even bigger positive impact on long-term revenue but they take much longer to train.

Any politician who decries the budget crisis but fails to support a long-term commitment to tax law enforcement is a hypocrite. The IRS should be 5 times bigger than it is.

Hate mail welcome via PM. :-)

william wrote:There's plenty more to think about... if thinking is what you're about. Meanwhile the ONE justification for gun ownership under the Second Amendment - protecting the rights of the people - vanishes along with all our other rights.

The 2nd hasn't vanished yet but if your list was meant to point out to people that pretty much every other freedom us oldsters were taught about in high school civics class has already been infringed, worked around, effectively destroyed, folded/spindled/mutilated...well, then, everybody already knows that, don't they?

I think that's why the fight to preserve the 2nd will be so intense this time. We've never been closer nor running at a more breakneck pace toward a place where it might be needed. I think anyone who has done any reasonable quantity of reading about the state and actions of the USA over the last 30 years already realizes that. Do you disagree?

BenEnglishTX wrote:

Hemmers wrote:I don't think people have a problem with background checks - these are already done if you buy from an FFL. The proposals are just to beef them up with access to more data and whatnot.

The distinction is when check becomes registration. The FFL does a check, and then tells them what you bought. This means if they decide to ban x, it is a trivial matter to call up a list of who has one and go confiscate them, as happened in 1997 in the Uk when they took the pistols. They knew exactly who ahd what, and if you didn't hand them in, off-shore them or show evidence of selling them by the cutoff date then you got a knock on the door.

This currently can't be done on a national scale in the US.

As things currently stand, no, mostly because the secondary market of face-to-face sales means that attempting to compile a national registry from the background check data can only result in a database so full of errors that it's useless.

However, if all transfers required background checks, it would be a simple matter for the NICS data (which is supposed to be destroyed in a day or two) to be kept. Given a generation, the result would be a fairly accurate national gun registration database. There has been evidence in the past that NICS data was not being destroyed or not being destroyed timely. I have no doubt that there will be a small paragraph buried somewhere in any new legislation that allows that data to continue to live.

So what happens then? The same thing as when New York required assault rifle registration. They waited a few years, banned assault rifles, and then went knocking on the doors of the registered owners.

Since the primary movers and shakers behind gun control have never made a secret of the fact that their long term goal is complete disarmament of the population, I think it obvious that mandatory background checks, while no big deal in practice, are being proposed with the true intention of creating a de facto registration scheme to enable future confiscation.

Now, there is a way around this, I suppose. In Texas (How does it work, elsewhere? Please chime in, y'all.) if you have a concealed carry permit, you are considered to have already passed the background check and dealers can sell to you without making a call to the NICS. If that work-around were available nationwide (meaning that, in practice, CHLs must be available in every state about as easily as in Texas), I think only the truly hardcore would still oppose mandatory background checks on all transfers. Personally, I wouldn't squawk (much) about it and I'm about as absolutist on these things as it's possible to be.

I think you have hit the nail on thr head here Ben. People who live in states where a concealed carry is all that is necessary to buy a gun without a background check are beyond easy monitoring by the BATF. Wyoming is the same as Texas in that regard. Colorado is not. Their rules are more restrictive and they run a background check every time you buy a gun.

Creating a national gun registry has constitutional implications. The states have had a lot of latitude in their internal background checks. There is no doubt that the federal law applies when ia gun gets transferred between one state and another. The issues are a little murkier when you are selling or trading a gun within the same state. The reason the feds have not attempted to control that, is because many believe that they probably can't. There are more difficult constitutional issues involved, when the feds try and control and criminalize a transaction that occurs entirely within one state. This is why the 1994 Assault weapons ban was such a mess. It didn't do much, so no one had a reason to challenge it it court to determine constitutionality.

The politicians who stand up and say that a nation wide ban or a national registration system, is as simple as "passing a law" are either grand standing for the low information voter, or are stupid, sometimes both.

Isabel1130 wrote:People who live in states where a concealed carry is all that is necessary to buy a gun without a background check are ...

I'd like to be clear on the semantics and it's clear I wasn't.

I would define "showing your CHL to the dealer" and "submitting to a background check" to be equal. Therefore, I would NOT say that in Texas and Wyoming, CHL holders can buy from FFLs without a background check. I'd say that when the FFL looks at the card and verifies it's not expired, that *is* a valid background check.

Whether the folks writing legislation at the moment would accept such an all-inclusive definition of "background check" is an open question and probably a hurdle we can't get over. When Chuck Schuymer says "background check", I feel fairly sure he wants to make sure that anytime anyone buys a gun anywhere, someone calls the federal government and provides all the details.

Sorry to be so pedantic but small vagaries in language on these issues can have large unintended consequences. I should have been clearer in my original post.

BenEnglishTX wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:People who live in states where a concealed carry is all that is necessary to buy a gun without a background check are ...

I'd like to be clear on the semantics and it's clear I wasn't.

I would define "showing your CHL to the dealer" and "submitting to a background check" to be equal. Therefore, I would NOT say that in Texas and Wyoming, CHL holders can buy from FFLs without a background check. I'd say that when the FFL looks at the card and verifies it's not expired, that *is* a valid background check.

Whether the folks writing legislation at the moment would accept such an all-inclusive definition of "background check" is an open question and probably a hurdle we can't get over. When Chuck Schuymer says "background check", I feel fairly sure he wants to make sure that anytime anyone buys a gun anywhere, someone calls the federal government and provides all the details.

Sorry to be so pedantic but small vagaries in language on these issues can have large unintended consequences. I should have been clearer in my original post.

That is correct, and actually what has happened in Wyoming, is that to get a concealed carry permit, you go through a fairly strict background check by law enforcement, with finger prints. Your concealed carry card just indicates that you are a person that has been cleared by the state, and need not go through any additional checks when buying a firearm.

I am sure Chuck Schuymer doesn't like it, but the BATF would need twenty times the people to even make a dent in the paperwork for a universal background check. If they actually manage to establish one, I will probably never buy another gun, and neither will I sell any of the ones I have.

Isabel1130 wrote: The issues are a little murkier when you are selling or trading a gun within the same state. The reason the feds have not attempted to control that, is because many believe that they probably can't. There are more difficult constitutional issues involved, when the feds try and control and criminalize a transaction that occurs entirely within one state.

They already do that with marijuana. I'm not entirely clear on the legal reasoning behind that, but I think it may be that even marijuana that is produced, sold and consumed totally within a state, is nevertheless part of a larger pattern of inter-state commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation.

Already every intra-state firearm transaction that is conducted through a FFL is, by definition, federally controlled. Do you think it would be constitutionally challengeable for the federal government to pass a law that ALL firearms transactions must be processed by a FFL? When in most cases the firearms in question were not manufactured in that state? Once all transactions are processed through a FFL, you have your registration system. It's closer than you think.

FredB

FredB wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: The issues are a little murkier when you are selling or trading a gun within the same state. The reason the feds have not attempted to control that, is because many believe that they probably can't. There are more difficult constitutional issues involved, when the feds try and control and criminalize a transaction that occurs entirely within one state.

They already do that with marijuana. I'm not entirely clear on the legal reasoning behind that, but I think it may be that even marijuana that is produced, sold and consumed totally within a state, is nevertheless part of a larger pattern of inter-state commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation.

Already every intra-state firearm transaction that is conducted through a FFL is, by definition, federally controlled. Do you think it would be constitutionally challengeable for the federal government to pass a law that ALL firearms transactions must be processed by a FFL? When in most cases the firearms in question were not manufactured in that state? Once all transactions are processed through a FFL, you have your registration system. It's closer than you think.

FredB

I'm aware of how the interstate commerce clause has been used to facilitate the drug wars, however there are many differences between drugs and guns.

Without giving a course on constitutional law, there is nothing in the constitution that gives anyone the right to own, use, sell or transport drugs. The closest constitutional issue is probably the penumbra of the right to privacy which is no where actually stated in the Constitution. The Second Amendment, and the decisions interperting it, are much larger stumbling blocks to federal control than any activity such as drug trafficing that has no constitutional protections.

Also, are you sure you meant intra state, and not inter state? Even some of my better educated friends often get confused between what the feds require, and what their own state requires.

I thought hard, and hesitated before I started another thread (now locked), because I know the moderators need to keep some organization here, but I thought rightly or wrongly, that this thread had developed a philosophical gravity that was massing around a debate over if we had some right or other, and the historical basis for that. This is an important, necessary and fundamentally democratic debate, and I did not want to take away from it. I was, and am proposing to shift the gravity towards a practical discussion of what can or should be done (and no, I don't mean to be provocative of insurrection) to preserve our sport, and the right for us to practice it. I'm coming from a postulate that we implicitly have this fundamental right, because until a week ago (in NY) we did.

Without reciting my other thread, and picking only one example, do you think it is worthwhile to start pushing for a favorable definition of what the definition of "bulk ammo" sales are, so that we can continue to buy our cases of Eley (or whatever) without someone at 'gun control central' losing their mind, or worse still thinking we had somehow lost our own minds and were an imminent danger to our communities? What other concrete practical shooting related issues do we care about and can influence?

xnoncents wrote:I thought hard, and hesitated before I started another thread (now locked), because I know the moderators need to keep some organization here, but I thought rightly or wrongly, that this thread had developed a philosophical gravity that was massing around a debate over if we had some right or other, and the historical basis for that. This is an important, necessary and fundamentally democratic debate, and I did not want to take away from it. I was, and am proposing to shift the gravity towards a practical discussion of what can or should be done (and no, I don't mean to be provocative of insurrection) to preserve our sport, and the right for us to practice it. I'm coming from a postulate that we implicitly have this fundamental right, because until a week ago (in NY) we did.

Without reciting my other thread, and picking only one example, do you think it is worthwhile to start pushing for a favorable definition of what the definition of "bulk ammo" sales are, so that we can continue to buy our cases of Eley (or whatever) without someone at 'gun control central' losing their mind, or worse still thinking we had somehow lost our own minds and were an imminent danger to our communities? What other concrete practical shooting related issues do we care about and can influence?

The feds don't have the resources to track ammo sales, and they know it. The best hope for them is to stampede and arm twist the states into doing it for them. Certain states will do this, because the politicians in control, think it is to their political advantage to do so.
If you happen to live in a state where they decide to track bulk ammo purchases, your first best option is to move. Your second option is to evade the issue, by reloading, and make ammo buying trips to the nearest friendly venue. Many of us who go to Camp Perry every year, buy, or pick up the bulk of our needs there. The CMP does a brisk business as do the retailers on commercial row.

Your third option is to join and fund groups such as the GOA, who are willing to fight these restrictions at the local and state level.

Isabel1130 wrote:

FredB wrote: Already every intra-state firearm transaction that is conducted through a FFL is, by definition, federally controlled. Do you think it would be constitutionally challengeable for the federal government to pass a law that ALL firearms transactions must be processed by a FFL? When in most cases the firearms in question were not manufactured in that state? Once all transactions are processed through a FFL, you have your registration system. It's closer than you think.
FredB

Also, are you sure you meant intra state, and not inter state? Even some of my better educated friends often get confused between what the feds require, and what their own state requires.

Of course I meant intra-state. I was referring to those states, such as California, which already require all firearms transfers to go through FFLs.

It is not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate firearm transfers, as well as other aspects of firearms. You are saying that the commerce clause could not be used to justify federal regulation of intra-state firearms transfers because the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected? I don't believe you'll get very far with that argument. The only thing that's preventing this happening is the political process.

FredB

xnoncents wrote:...I was, and am proposing to shift the gravity towards a practical discussion ... I'm coming from a postulate that we implicitly have this fundamental right, because until a week ago (in NY) we did.
...
What other concrete practical shooting related issues do we care about and can influence?

I don't think there needs to be a shift. One thread can go in both directions without confusion; each line of thought reinforces the other.

You may be currently stuck in New York, the land where temporary insanity took over the legislature, but I think you do still have options in addition to those already discussed.

Your legislature *must*, very soon, consider a technical corrections bill to amend the law that just passed. As I understand it (though I could certainly be wrong), in their haste they neglected to put in any provision allowing the police to ignore the law, thus turning the firearms (or at least the magazines) on the hips of most police officers into illegal things, not to mention all their SWAT toys. Once that sinks in, there will be a quiet attempt to clarify the issue. Don't let it be quiet. When the technical corrections bill goes into whatever committee it goes into, it's imperative that you be organized (quickly! You should already be in touch with your state rifle association or whatever currently extant organizations historically fight for you in Albany.) and get language included that, for example, exempts rimfire ammo from bulk purchase accounting. Throw in anything else you can to get that "one feature" idiocy watered down. Try to get all rimfires exempted from all provisions, new and old. Go for everything and get as much as you can.

If there's no technical corrections bill already, get with a good pro-gun state legislator and help him or her write the NY "Future Olympians Protection Act" that carves out as much of the bad stuff as possible from the bill just passed.

Get the idea?

As I skim it, the text seems to apply only to semi-autos, thus putting ISSF-style rifle shooters in the clear. ISSF pistol shooters often have 5-round-only magazines for their pistols. (I dunno, maybe the value of old Dominoes and Britarms pistols may have just gone up in NY.) Thus, if you could specify what sort of competition you shoot and which provisions impact you, I'd be happy to do a bit more brainstorming.

Lastly, I feel for you. As I read the text of the law, this

is now an assault weapon. My heart goes out to you if you must live in a state where you're subject to that kind of idiocy.

No, FredB, what I am saying is that California is the one requiring intrastate transfers to go through ann FFL. Just because they can do it, does not mean the Federal government can do it, anymore than the Federal government can mandate that all the states do it.

The difficulty of doing this has to do primarily with enforcement. If the federal government makes something a law, it is toothless without criminal penalties for not doing it. Those criminal penalties are often what runs afowl, of the constitution. More on this later. I am typing on my phone in a doctor's office

Scot Pilkington, i don't care if you lock this post and even lifetime ban me. I am sick and tired of reading these windbag posts from the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. They don't have a dog in the fight.

There was a post of the nuts and bolts affect of the NY law directly impacting International Target Shooting. It was just swept under the rug.

Myself and Pat McCoy made good points in the initial post which was conveniently lost forever. The replacement post is pure garbage.

I live very close to the NY line and have shot with NY staters as well as shooting at NY matches. That law has far reaching consequences whether intended or not. I know PA shooters most likely won't venture across the border to shoot. I feel for the NY guys. Their shooting life just got very inconvenient and expensive.

Edited to clarify: I do not mean to imply that the site had anything to do with the lost post. I do suspect a anti-gun zealot. That thoughtful discussion goes against there purposes.

sbrmike wrote:Scot Pilkington, i don't care if you lock this post and even lifetime ban me. I am sick and tired of reading these windbag posts from the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. They don't have a dog in the fight.

There was a post of the nuts and bolts affect of the NY law directly impacting International Target Shooting. It was just swept under the rug.

Myself and Pat McCoy made good points in the initial post which was conveniently lost forever. The replacement post is pure garbage.

I live very close to the NY line and have shot with NY staters as well as shooting at NY matches. That law has far reaching consequences whether intended or not. I know PA shooters most likely won't venture across the border to shoot. I feel for the NY guys. Their shooting life just got very inconvenient and expensive.

I feel badly for the New Yorkers too. They generally have one of the largest groups at Camp Perry, and New York has told them, in essence to take a hike. One law at a time, New York, is bent on driving out their most productive, and law abiding citizens.

This is one of the things that the foreign posters understand the least. This is not a national issue, as much as it is a state by state battle to make sure we never have a 60 vote majority in the Senate, which can pass something without being filibustered. The organization of the U.S. allows you to vote with your feet, and many have already done so.