|
vains posted:im like 99% certain that you cant legally buy a gun in state 'a' if you're not a resident of state 'a' unless the weapon is shipped to an ffl in the state where you are a resident. once the gun arrives in whatever state you're a resident of, it is still subject to the laws of that state. This is correct.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
vains posted:im like 99% certain that you cant legally buy a gun in state 'a' if you're not a resident of state 'a' unless the weapon is shipped to an ffl in the state where you are a resident. once the gun arrives in whatever state you're a resident of, it is still subject to the laws of that state. Depends on the state. For example, in Alaska, you can buy long guns with an out of state ID so long as you can legally purchase the same firearm in your state of residence. Hand guns are restricted to in state residents. Internet says this about Virginia quote:I'm here from another state. Can I purchase a gun in Virginia? Godholio posted:This is correct. For handguns - yes. For rifles and shotguns - depends on the state. TCD fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:47
|
|
Godholio posted:This is correct. But pretty easily circumvented.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:But pretty easily circumvented. True. Also I assumed we were talking about handguns since Chicago crime was the topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
So if there are laws that appear should be functional, but criminals still manage to procure firearms with relative ease, what is the solution? People like to point to the regulations of cities with stringent gun-laws and high crime to demonstrate how those laws are ineffective, though in reality they do enable local law enforcement to tack on extra charges when they arrest someone carrying a firearm. It seems pretty apparent that the American firearm market is fairly well saturated with unscrupulous individuals who are willing to serve as straw-purchasers, and in the absence of a nationally integrated registry system these individuals are more difficult to track and prosecute than they otherwise might be. the NRA and its affiliate organizations like to claim that these systems won't prevent crimes because the majority of violent gun-crimes are executed using stolen or illegally acquired weapons. As much as I enjoy idiotic circular reasoning, this doesn't seem like a good faith analysis of what a federal registry system would enable. Other restrictions, such as those placed on the CDC, only serve to provide a smokescreen of uncertainty as to ways that resources could be better brought to bear to address the issues of gun-related homicides and violence. I don't give a poo poo about assault rifles compared to handguns, outside of how significantly they are fetishistized within our culture, and how that fetishization contributes to the NRA's member rolls and income. They're bad-faith actors with regards to discussions of reasonable gun laws and have fully turned into an embarrassing, racist, fear-mongering institution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
the obvious solution is steps that look at reducing crime itself, but that involves addressing our massive systemic issues concerning race, income inequality and the justice system and lol there aren't 10 votes in the Senate for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:the obvious solution is steps that look at reducing crime itself, but that involves addressing our massive systemic issues concerning race, income inequality and the justice system and lol there aren't 10 votes in the Senate for that. But until we get to that point, universal background checks and a federal registry are a relatively cheap and straightforward way to crack down on guns diverted from legal channels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
In discussions like this I can only ever hear "criminals" as a dog whistle. If people are using gun violence to support some other kind of criminal activity, gun control is a bizarre suggestion. And we always calls for gun-related legal protections (on both sides, even) come back into vogue when someone without an illegal enterprise to defend, and frequently without a criminal record of any kind, kills themselves, or a family member, or someone who pissed them off for a second, or a whole passel of strangers. Those are the things that people are shocked by, and want to do something about. They find "'criminals" frightening even when unarmed.Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:btw, i opened up my safe and gave a warm smile to all my scary "assault weapons" after reading all the hand wringing poo poo in here I know it's technically legal, but please don't gently caress your guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:the obvious solution is steps that look at reducing crime itself, but that involves addressing our massive systemic issues concerning race, income inequality and the justice system and lol there aren't 10 votes in the Senate for that. Yeah, and as a gun owner I agree with more stringent background checks. But you've lost me at banning specific firearms; I'm overall a generally liberal democrat voter but I'm sure as hell not willing to give up my AR15 as a law abiding person. Flying_Crab fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:But until we get to that point, universal background checks and a federal registry are a relatively cheap and straightforward way to crack down on guns diverted from legal channels. The Govt. is prohibited from establishing a registry thanks to FOPA in '86 No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926 So that's a small hiccup that needs to be rolled back first before a registry could happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Didn't Canada scrap their registry because it was worthless? Also didn't California institute a registry before enacting actual bans on certain weapons? It makes for a valid slippery slope argument among gun owners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:Didn't Canada scrap their registry because it was worthless? Also didn't California institute a registry before enacting actual bans on certain weapons? It makes for a valid slippery slope argument among gun owners. Yeah Canada tossed their registry a few years back and outright said it didn't solve poo poo and was costing more than it was saving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Capn Beeb posted:Yeah Canada tossed their registry a few years back and outright said it didn't solve poo poo and was costing more than it was saving. Scrapped the Long Gun Registry. The "Restricted" registry, which is for handguns, AR-15's, and select other long guns is still intact. The system is still broken, but it's a little better without the LGR
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:Didn't Canada scrap their registry because it was worthless? Also didn't California institute a registry before enacting actual bans on certain weapons? It makes for a valid slippery slope argument among gun owners. I literally want those things to provide statistical bases for dramatically restricting the sales of handguns to straw purchasers. I don't think any policy I would advocate for would appeal to gun enthusiasts because every attempt at examining systemic contributors to firearm deaths is treated like a gestapo tactic by a bunch of hysterical NRA paid performers
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:NRA paid performers Methinks this might be the root cause of a lot of problems with gun laws. They've become a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers that figured out playing up white supremacist fears is good for profits. There's a lot of that kind of thing going around the government lately. Crack that little code and gun laws won't be the only thing to improve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I know it's technically legal, but please don't gently caress your guns. please dont kinkshame you bigot
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
I have no plans to google this but I wonder if anyone has legit tried to stick their dick in the barrel of a gun and had a ND. The answer is obviously yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:But until we get to that point, universal background checks and a federal registry are a relatively cheap and straightforward way to crack down on guns diverted from legal channels. I'm fine with background checks. A registry completely undermines the Second Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
a national registry would be used as a tool for confiscation by those championing it as soon as it became politically convenient ergo gently caress off the edge of my dick 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm fine with background checks. Explain this to me. It's as bizarre to me as the ATF not being allowed to use electronic file processing systems (not even what's state of the art or even feasible in this day and age, but the most basic poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Explain this to me. Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:a national registry would be used as a tool for confiscation by those championing it as soon as it became politically convenient The electronic vs paper thing is stupid, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Ah yes, the only thing holding back the government from an expensive and almost certainly violent confiscation program is the missing registry map! How completely asinine
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The electronic vs paper thing is stupid, I agree. Sorry, but I have trouble seeing a causal relationship between "a gun registry has been established" and "lol all your gats are gone now" I can't even imagine how any push for a registry would (or even could) somehow include legal/constitutional provisions to take away someone's guns. It makes it sound like the only thing safeguarding the 2nd amendment is "lol we have no idea who owns the guns" which - I assume - is comically inaccurate based on how hard it is to gently caress with constitutional safeguards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Sorry, but I have trouble seeing a causal relationship between "a gun registry has been established" and "lol all your gats are gone now" There is nothing inherent to a registry that legally allows the government to confiscate guns. However there have been a few instances, typically during natural disasters, where the government has gone door to door seizing firearms and ammunition illegally in recent years. A registry empowers this illegal confiscation by telling them exactly where they need to go and what they should find there. The most common example of this behavior is when New Orleans used the police force and National Guard to seize all the firearms they could find in the city after Hurricane Katrina. The people who had their firearms taken were left without means to defend themselves while crime was rampant and police were practically unreachable. In response to this a federal law was passed banning the government from attempting to confiscate guns during natural disasters. However, this law didn't stop the governor of the US Virgin Islands from signing an executive order stating that the National Guard is authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition and other property before Hurricane Irma. After a pretty intense backlash and threats to file suit by the NRA he backtracked and said the order just meant the National Guard could buy guns from gun stores. Another argument against registries is that whenever a new law is passed banning some meaningless cosmetic feature on a firearm like "barrel shrouds" then the registry empowers the government to confiscate all the existing guns with those features instead of requiring the law to grandfather in preexisting guns. Delizin fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Delizin posted:There is nothing inherent to a registry that legally allows the government to confiscate guns. However there have been a few instances, typically during natural disasters, where the government has gone door to door seizing firearms and ammunition illegally in recent years. A registry empowers this illegal confiscation by telling them exactly where they need to go and what they should find there. The most common example of this behavior is when New Orleans used the police force and National Guard to seize all the firearms they could find in the city after Hurricane Katrina. The people who had their firearms taken were left without means to defend themselves while crime was rampant and police were practically unreachable. EDIT: Nope, apparently this did happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms But frankly, that's still not a good argument against a registry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
I think it's a very loving good argument against a registry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
If police came to illegally take your guns, what would you do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I'd also like to point out that the ATF already tracks sales of multiple firearms to the same individual over short periods of times to look for signs of arms trafficking. My understanding is that they are mostly concerned with individuals who receive 3 background checks for handguns within a month or buy multiple longarms in one transaction in states near the southern border.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Delizin posted:I'd also like to point out that the ATF already tracks sales of multiple firearms to the same individual over short periods of times to look for signs of arms trafficking. My understanding is that they are mostly concerned with individuals who receive 3 background checks for handguns within a month or buy multiple longarms in one transaction in states near the southern border. Using a system of paper only that the NRA lobbied for. The NRA has openly pushed for a system that enabled rampant abuse of gun purchases and faulty background checks. https://youtu.be/_ECYMvjU52E Doc Hawkins posted:If police came to illegally take your guns, what would you do? Godholio posted:I think it's a very loving good argument against a registry. Don't kid yourself, they'll take your guns if they want them, registry or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:If police came to illegally take your guns, what would you do? bah gawd I'd ask for a receipt
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but there has got to be a better argument against a gun registry than "well, when natural disasters hit, and authorities decide to act unconstitutionally, then this would help them make their already unconstitutional behavior more efficient"...especially since that argument leaves out every scenario where a state of emergency is not part of the equation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think it's a very loving good argument against a registry. If reactions to Katrina are whats under the microscope then seizing firearms is so far down the list in terms of civil rights violations and failed governance to be almost laughable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
*police seize weapons illegally and murder people during a disaster* "guys there's nothing wrong here"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what he was saying
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
They passed a Federal Law making the seizures illegals afterwards. Nothing to prevent Police gunning down people like they did on the bridge in New Orleans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:*police seize weapons illegally and murder people during a disaster* yeah, if only the people the police murdered were armed. bad guy with a gun against a good guy with a gun.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Look at the people in charge of the country right now. Do you trust them? Do you really think enough Americans have been flipped in the past 9 months that we're about to jump back on the track to sanity? Do you think for one minute that in 30 years things are going to be better? The problem with gun confiscation isn't that magically one day SuperHillary is going to be elected and issue a proclamation. The threat is that the right to keep and bear arms will be gradually eroded, because "Hey this one little thing isn't a big deal and it might help a couple dozen people per year." Maybe now you can't buy ammunition without a loving license. Maybe now you're on a no-fly list because you bought too much ammo last year, or you have too many guns. Maybe you've got a flag by your name in the DMV registry. There's an awful lot of bad poo poo that can happen that doesn't directly lead to confiscation...which is still a thing that could happen. Rights that are given away are never returned. So while Bill A which gets passed in 2018 isn't a huge problem, by the time we get to Bill Q in 2045 we could very well be on that path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Yeah. Slippery slope and all. Can't let the gays marry either because in 2045 people will want to marry robots.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Look at the people in charge of the country right now. No I don't trust them, but I don't see what having a gun has to do with any of that. What I do know is that the city I used to live in had a gunshop that would sell weapons illegally to straw purchasers, knowing they were going to the streets, and that this practice subsisted for well over a decade before being discovered as part of a separate criminal proceeding. Hundreds of guns a year being put on the streets of New Orleans because there was an absence of meaningful tracking which would have allowed anyone not complicit or completely asleep at the wheel to figure out what was going on. This of course only represents a single instance where someone was caught engaging in this behavior, Preventing some potential slippery slope doesn't really mean much when you get to see the effects of gun violence on a regular basis all around where you live. Before I moved away I was way more concerned about a friend saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or a trigger happy police officer than I was about some grand conspiracy to deprive me of my rights. Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Any of you goons Chicago PD? I just applied. I'm 29 years old, have a BBA in Accounting (182 credits total) and 8 years of active duty (Marine Corps, deployments for both OIF and OEF, got out as E6, honorable discharge). I have a bit of criminal history: at 14, I was arrested for misdemeanor possession. Did a few months of counseling, then got everything expunged at 18. Then in 2015, I was arrested for a misdemeanor aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (firearm). I was falsely accused, case was dismissed, I got my FOID and CHL back from the state, and got the arrest expunged a year later. I have no reason to think I'll fail the written exam. What should I expect after? new friend from school fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:06
|
|
