Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?

'As Defined' makes no difference. As it WILL be defined is what matters now. ATF defines it in regulations (I posted a link to how they currently define it earlier).

AS Defined means Seller is a legally defined term of art under the legislation that requires FFLs. (We're agreeing FYI)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?

No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.

IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun

I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.

except this isnt a banned designed to make guns unavailable, but technology to, supposedly, make sure only the owner can use it
Granted, with how easy it is for people to just hack phones, I bet these guns will just create a mild inconvienance.

Because you know everyone hacks their phones. Technical expertise is not as common as one might think for the average gun owner. Having several skills such as owning a gun, knowing how to bypass security protocols and purchasing a gun are not all going to line up as much as one would think.

Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No you don't but you have the responsiblity to report any stolen weapons, and be responsible for illegally selling weapons to those do not have a liscense. That is the application I see of this bill.

You have a responsiblity to know your customer, yes you will not be charged, but you could be fined for selling it someone who doesn't own a liscense, or anything like that.

You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt assuming you agreed with it, just an observation about the situation

Those on the right shouldnt be surprised that the left is going to use their own tactics against them about something they put on a pedestal above all other things

Assuming that only those on the right own firearms. But if you think that the best way to run a country is on the basis of tu quoque then that is your prerogative.

 Asherian Command wrote:

As a private citizen not engaged in the business of selling firearms I am permitted to sell a firearm without being obliged to conduct a background check. I have no such protection for selling morphine. Your comparison is a false one.

It was never the responsibility of the manufacturers to conduct background checks to begin with. Only those deriving their income from the business of selling firearms was required to conduct an NICS background check. Private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the practice of selling firearms were exempt from the necessity of carrying out a background check.

No you don't but you have the responsiblity to report any stolen weapons, and be responsible for illegally selling weapons to those do not have a liscense. That is the application I see of this bill.

You have a responsiblity to know your customer, yes you will not be charged, but you could be fined for selling it someone who doesn't own a liscense, or anything like that.

You don't need a license to buy a gun.

Anyone who has a 01 or 02 Federal Firearms License has to conduct a background check on the buyer when selling a firearm. Some states, like mine, allow people to use an active Concealed Carry License as proof of a clean background in lieu of doing a NICS check but everyone with a dealer FFL has to conduct a background check regardless of where they sell the firearm, gun show or brick and mortar shop. There is no legal way to buy a gun via an online sale from a dealer without going through a background check. If I buy a gun via an online sale from a gun store that store is legally required to ship the gun to another FFL where I then have to pick up the gun after passing a background check. There is no legal way for a dealer to sell a gun online to a citizen without having that buyer get a background check.

If you have an 03 C&R FFL you can get any eligible C&R firearm shipped directly to you without going through a background check because you have an FFL. However, an 03 license is not a dealer license and cannot be used in lieu of a dealer license to run a business. You also have to keep detailed records of the firearms you buy or sell via your 03 FFL and those records can be examined by the ATF while you have an active 03 FFL.

It most certainly is not the best way to run a country

But since when has that been a concern to those in power on either side of the aisle?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
It most certainly is not the best way to run a country

But since when has that been a concern to those in power on either side of the aisle?

Good, we agree that pettiness and spite are not good motivations for law making, much less eroding Constitutional rights.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.

Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?

So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.

Not all logic like that makes sense all the time.

Wow this reminds me of the movie Lord of War with nicholas cage.

You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).

Wait a second.

So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?

What the hell.

God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia. What is this country living in the 50s?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?

No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.

IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun

I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.

except this isnt a banned designed to make guns unavailable, but technology to, supposedly, make sure only the owner can use it
Granted, with how easy it is for people to just hack phones, I bet these guns will just create a mild inconvienance.

No it isn't. Read the executive order:

I wasn't talking about if it was within the federal group?

I was making fun of the idea that everyone could hack their weapons to disable the safety feature for a smart gun.

Wrong quote?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.

Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?

So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.

Not all logic like that makes sense all the time.

Wow this reminds me of the movie Lord of War with nicholas cage.

You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).

Wait a second.

So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?

What the hell.

God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia.

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Wait a second.

So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?

What the hell.

God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia.

So America is at fault because you don't understand the laws as they relate to firearms? What permit was required for your modelling software, because right now it looks like you are stringing together a lot of unrelated examples to make a very poorly expressed point.

 Asherian Command wrote:

No it isn't. Read the executive order:

I wasn't talking about if it was within the federal group?

I was making fun of the idea that everyone could hack their weapons to disable the safety feature for a smart gun.

Wrong quote?

I was was replying to Hotsauceman1's post that you were replying to. Fixed it.

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?

Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

America is at fault because you don't understand the laws as they relate to firearms? What permit was required for your modelling software, because right now it looks like you are stringing together a lot of unrelated examples to make a very poorly expressed point.

I just think it is stupid that I have to have buy a permit for anything like a modelling software or photoshop. The fact that gun owners do not need to buy one is kind of hilarious, and more of, you guys haven't moved on from that idea of constantly under threat. Or under the assumption that guns = safety.

We need to buy liscenses in order to sell our materials or to do anything in the game design field. There is free software but at the same time why would you use a hammer on a screw?

We can practice it but we won't get anywhere, we can't digitially possess something unless we own it ourselves under IP laws. Or we are doing it for educational needs. Building permits for example are needed for just about everything unless! You are involved with a charity or live in unincorpoated area of a county.

So I do think it is a tad bit silly that I need a permit to build a ramp or a railing, but I don't need one for a gun.

 Asherian Command wrote:
IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?

Selling to a minor is already illegal. Selling to a 'gang banger' is illegal (assuming you mean known criminal when you use the term gang banger). You would already be prosecuted if you got caught doing those things.

 Asherian Command wrote:

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?

Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.

Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.

 Asherian Command wrote:

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?

Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

Your statement has nothing to do with the quote you were replying to. Were you trying to reply to another quote?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?

Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.

Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.

No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

The constituion originally put it down because they the congress believed that the militia or the people were going to be the standing military. So they allowed people to bare arms, and also because they didn't at the time have the power to so NO Guns because alot of people hunted and gathered as the US was a frontier country at the time. I don't think they were thinking "This is a permanent thing where it is okay to own an armory." I think it is gone from owning a single gun or two to people owning a bit too much. But that doesn't mean no one can own a gun, just be limited to how many are sold on the market, and to have a check into peoples backgrounds so they aren't crazy.

I ask these questions because I am trying to understand the need to own a gun. I don't own a gun, because I have no need for it, there is no good reason to own it. It would just be an expense or would waste space and being an unneeded hazard.

If there is no specific niche need, other than collection why be so adamant on keeping so many guns in circulation or sale? You don't want background checks to prevent people who are nefarious to use a gun for nefarious or violent means? If the current system is not working to prevent mass shootings don't you think it should be regulated in someway? Yeah there will be illegal gun sellers, but there is already enough guns in the united states to give one to each person. I am not angery just more curious and framing that as a question.

Selling to a minor is already illegal. Selling to a 'gang banger' is illegal (assuming you mean known criminal when you use the term gang banger). You would already be prosecuted if you got caught doing those things.

Good, then that wraps that conversation up nicely.

Your statement has nothing to do with the quote you were replying to. Were you trying to reply to another quote?

More General statement than a targeted one.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.

Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?

Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.

Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.

No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

Who are you to determine the validity of this "need"?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?

You mean like;
- Texas Garland attack?
- San Bernardino attack?
- planned New York attack on New Years Eve?

Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.

I am still able to bear arms for self defense. Or sport. Or hunting

 Asherian Command wrote:
I ask these questions because I am trying to understand the need to own a gun. I don't own a gun, because I have no need for it, there is no good reason to own it. It would just be an expense or would waste space and being an unneeded hazard.

Great for you that you can decide for yourself not to exercise that right. That does not mean however that because you do not want to exercise that right that you can strip it from other people who can and do exercise their right

 Asherian Command wrote:
I just think it is stupid that I have to have buy a permit for anything like a modelling software or photoshop. The fact that gun owners do not need to buy one is kind of hilarious, and more of, you guys haven't moved on from that idea of constantly under threat. Or under the assumption that guns = safety.

We need to buy liscenses in order to sell our materials or to do anything in the game design field. There is free software but at the same time why would you use a hammer on a screw?

We can practice it but we won't get anywhere, we can't digitially possess something unless we own it ourselves under IP laws. Or we are doing it for educational needs. Building permits for example are needed for just about everything unless! You are involved with a charity or live in unincorpoated area of a county.

Let me clear this up for you a software license =/= a government license.

Ordinarily I would have said let me see some evidence that we should have moved on from the assumption that "guns = safety", but that is drifting us into dangerous waters and away from the topic at hand - the Executive Orders announced today. If you would like to discuss guns generally then perhaps you should find or create a more suitable thread for that purpose. Accordingly I will not be replying to any more of your off topic posts in this thread to prevent it being dragged further off topic.

No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

Why do you feel the need to post?

The Bill of Rights, including Freedom of Speech, are not predicated on what you need. Its what you already have.

Why do you feel the need to post?

The Bill of Rights, including Freedom of Speech, are not predicated on what you need. Its what you already have.

Because I am curious. Other than a personal need is there really anyway to say it is anything but a want or something that you could easily do without?

Ordinarily I would have said let me see some evidence that we should have moved on from the assumption that "guns = safety", but that is drifting us into dangerous waters and away from the topic at hand - the Executive Orders announced today. If you would like to discuss guns generally then perhaps you should find or create a more suitable thread for that purpose.

Oh I think the executive order is bad and good. It has certain things that are dumb. Like the smart gun research. And then the background checks being justified.

I am just trying to figure out if people are afraid of background checks or there being more ATF agents.


offtopic:

You mean like;
- Texas Garland attack?
- San Bernardino attack?
- planned New York attack on New Years Eve?

Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?

No. Those were handled by police forces, and FBI. Why worry if you are nowhere in trouble.

I mean an executive order or not, I think it is justified to circumvent a terrible congress that has done nothing for the past year. I am also one who thinks that we live in a oligarchy and not a republic.

Who are you to determine the validity of this "need"?

I am not I am just asking what need and why? I can't judge people because of their way of life.

My way of life is about industrial and creativity and problem solving, I have no need for guns because of my industry and my place in the world.

 Asherian Command wrote:

offtopic:

You mean like;
- Texas Garland attack?
- San Bernardino attack?
- planned New York attack on New Years Eve?

Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?

No. Those were handled by police forces, and FBI. Why worry if you are nowhere in trouble.

I mean an executive order or not, I think it is justified to circumvent a terrible congress that has done nothing for the past year. I am also one who thinks that we live in a oligarchy and not a republic.

That should never be justified.

EO isn't meant to circumvent congress.

Jeebus... that'll be Obama's legacy... a legacy of Presidential Overreach.

Can you imagine of Republican President doing the same sort of things? President Cruz/Trump?

Shudder...

 Asherian Command wrote:
[No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

It's irrelevant to this thread, so please stop dragging this off-topic.

 whembly wrote:
Can you imagine of Republican President doing the same sort of things? President Cruz/Trump?

Shudder...

Trump has already proven he's willing to gak all over the 1st and 4th Amendments. Sadly a lot of people seem to agree with him.

 Ouze wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
[No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

It's irrelevant to this thread, so please stop dragging this off-topic.

True true stopping discussion O.O

Can you imagine of Republican President doing the same sort of things? President Cruz/Trump?

Hahahahaha.

Irony.


Executive decisions can happen and they do happen. Alot more than you think, and they are usually unconstitutional. I am not surprised. Almost every president in history has done it. (well almost every there are always going to be exceptions)

Teddy, Abraham lincoln, Jackson, Theodore, Eisenhower, Nickson, and Bush.

Trump has already proven he's willing to gak all over the 1st and 4th Amendments. Sadly a lot of people seem to agree with him.

Usually ignoring him and his policies will ensure he won't get more popular.

 Ouze wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
[No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?

It's irrelevant to this thread, so please stop dragging this off-topic.

This really

Usually ignoring him and his policies will ensure he won't get more popular.

They said that about a guy with a lame moustache too.

*Marks Godwin square on the bingo*

Soon there.

As has been said several times over the last few pages to various users, stop dragging this off topic. Now.