So what if a female has a husband that is abusive, threatens her with a gun. She calls the law. The Sheriff sees no reason to take the husbands gun because he doesn't want to violate the husbands rights. The husband has PTSD. A history of violence. 3 days later the wife is found shot to death in her home by her husband. What happens then? I guess he gets his day in court still.
Well if that happens the husband just broke the law in which case the sheriff should arrest him on felony charges which will be better since he will be in jail. While he is in Jail if the threat is real she has the chance to get somewhere safe.
So what if a female has a husband that is abusive, threatens her with a gun. She calls the law. The Sheriff sees no reason to take the husbands gun because he doesn't want to violate the husbands rights. The husband has PTSD. A history of violence. 3 days later the wife is found shot to death in her home by her husband. What happens then? I guess he gets his day in court still.
But to reiterate the Virginia laws that are in question:
1. One handgun per month purchase.
2. Red flag laws, allowing the courts to temporarily remove someone's access to guns if friends, family, or others can show that the person is a threat to themselves or others.
3. Eliminate the gun show loop hole, requiring background checks on all gun sales except those through immediate family.
I guess what I don't understand is, if you are legally able to own a gun and aren't trying to sell guns to criminals, then why are you opposed to a quick background check?
And why do people believe that someone considered by a judge to be "a threat to themselves or others" should continue to have legal access to guns?
The only reason given so far has really been "because we can," but there has to be more to it than that. Surely we can all agree that times have changed in the last 250 years, and regardless of whether the 2nd Amendment implied that the government has the right to regulate (my believe) or is restricted from infringing on free access (other's belief), there's no way that the forefathers had any concept of psychotic and violent mental disorders that could lead to a mass shooting.
1 Why should anyone be limited to one handgun a month?
2 No one should lose their rights based on an accusation until they have had their day in court which is what red flags law do.
3 Once again their is no gun show loophole private sales can and do happen everywhere so calling it a gun show loophole is being dishonest.
Just imagine how you and everyone on the left would act if if we applied the same restrictions to the rest of the bill of rights. You don't even want to show an ID to vote but your ok if its a firearm
There is no Yes or No about Under NC law the buyer of a hand gun must have either a PPP from the sheriff Or a NC CHP period.
Can you show me the law where it explains how the seller is to verify the PPP or NC CHP? Or keep a record of it along with any type of bill of sale?
I looked, but couldn't find anything.
The law reads to me that the seller can show the buyer anything, and then the buyer has plausible deniability. And it looks like most sellers feel the same way:
No that's not how the law reads the law says the buyer has to have a PPP or a valid NC CHP both of which are issued by the sheriffs dept. and are standardize documents.
Here is a couple of links about gun control and confiscation! The first is from Mark Robinson at a Greensboro council meeting. The second a very smart young lady!
But to reiterate the Virginia laws that are in question:
1. One handgun per month purchase.
2. Red flag laws, allowing the courts to temporarily remove someone's access to guns if friends, family, or others can show that the person is a threat to themselves or others.
3. Eliminate the gun show loop hole, requiring background checks on all gun sales except those through immediate family.
I guess what I don't understand is, if you are legally able to own a gun and aren't trying to sell guns to criminals, then why are you opposed to a quick background check?
And why do people believe that someone considered by a judge to be "a threat to themselves or others" should continue to have legal access to guns?
The only reason given so far has really been "because we can," but there has to be more to it than that. Surely we can all agree that times have changed in the last 250 years, and regardless of whether the 2nd Amendment implied that the government has the right to regulate (my believe) or is restricted from infringing on free access (other's belief), there's no way that the forefathers had any concept of psychotic and violent mental disorders that could lead to a mass shooting.
There is no Yes or No about Under NC law the buyer of a hand gun must have either a PPP from the sheriff Or a NC CHP period.
Can you show me the law where it explains how the seller is to verify the PPP or NC CHP? Or keep a record of it along with any type of bill of sale?
I looked, but couldn't find anything.
The law reads to me that the seller can show the buyer anything, and then the buyer has plausible deniability. And it looks like most sellers feel the same way:
One thing I have notice you are all about putting more restrictions on legal gun owners. Where were you when that father and son had an illegal handgun and assaulted someone which cost the felon father his life. I don't recall you calling for the law breaking son to be prosecuted for breaking the law.
Are you talking about Kelly Black? That was awhile back so I only barely remember it, but Google found me these:
I have argued in favor of greater restrictions to make it harder for people with violent tendencies to legally buy a gun, though, and you have regularly argued that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate guns.
I don't know enough about the Kelly Black case to know where he got the gun, but it's probably pretty safe to assume that he either had it before he became a felon and didn't turn it in, or someone else bought it for him, or that he bought it second hand from an individual. In either of those cases, greater legal regulations could have prevented that.
Regulations that, bringing this back to the subject of the thread, the NRA has opposed.
The seller can be charged if the gun is proven to have come from him or her. to a prohibited person,
I don't think that's true, the law just says that the seller has to have reasonable cause to believe that it's prohibited. Plausible deniability is a legally allowed defense.
At least, on a national level. I don't know all of the individual states' laws.
And selling a firearm to some one you know nothing about is something only a or a criminal would do.
There is a black market in fire arms but outlawing private sales will not make any difference,.Criminals don't care how many laws are in place.
Sure it would. The wide majority of sellers would attempt to follow the law, so it would limit the criminal buyers to finding the criminal sellers. And since that would be illegal, it increases the probability of one or both being caught.
That's not quite true in NC you have to have a permit to buy a handgun period
Yes and no. The state law does make it a Class 2 misdemeanor to knowingly sell a handgun to someone without a permit:
But the key word there is knowingly. The law doesn't say what steps the seller has to take to verify it, or that he has to keep any records. So it's very easy for a would-be criminal to show up with a fake permit, and the seller is well within his rights to sell him the guns.
Regardless, this thread is about the proposed Virginia laws that got everyone bent out of shape, and they don't restrict handguns in the same way:
There is no Yes or No about Under NC law the buyer of a hand gun must have either a PPP from the sheriff Or a NC CHP period.
One thing I have notice you are all about putting more restrictions on legal gun owners. Where were you when that father and son had an illegal handgun and assaulted someone which cost the felon father his life. I don't recall you calling for the law breaking son to be prosecuted for breaking the law.
I wouldn't know... how many of them are purchased by someone in Chicago, then hauled back home to be sold on the streets? There's no national database, so no one would ever know.
Just wondering, how many crimes would need to be prevented, and how many lives would need to be saved, in order to justify the minor inconvenience of you having to do a background check before buying or selling a gun from a private seller?
there are hundred if not thousands of private sales that take place here in Wilkes every year, Where is all the crime that that a ban on private sales would supposedly prevent? Ask Management how many problems he has had by having gun ads in the classifieds. I would wager none at all.
The seller can be charged if the gun is proven to have come from him or her. to a prohibited person,
I don't think that's true, the law just says that the seller has to have reasonable cause to believe that it's prohibited. Plausible deniability is a legally allowed defense.
At least, on a national level. I don't know all of the individual states' laws.
And selling a firearm to some one you know nothing about is something only a or a criminal would do.
There is a black market in fire arms but outlawing private sales will not make any difference,.Criminals don't care how many laws are in place.
Sure it would. The wide majority of sellers would attempt to follow the law, so it would limit the criminal buyers to finding the criminal sellers. And since that would be illegal, it increases the probability of one or both being caught.
That's not quite true in NC you have to have a permit to buy a handgun period
Yes and no. The state law does make it a Class 2 misdemeanor to knowingly sell a handgun to someone without a permit:
But the key word there is knowingly. The law doesn't say what steps the seller has to take to verify it, or that he has to keep any records. So it's very easy for a would-be criminal to show up with a fake permit, and the seller is well within his rights to sell him the guns.
Regardless, this thread is about the proposed Virginia laws that got everyone bent out of shape, and they don't restrict handguns in the same way:
Not true. You only show an ID if you are buying from a licensed dealer, but if you're buying a gun from an individual then there's no restriction at all.
Which is what the Virginia law (the basis for this thread) is trying to fix.
That's not quite true in NC you have to have a permit to buy a handgun period
The seller can be charged if the gun is proven to have come from him or her. to a prohibited person, And selling a firearm to some one you know nothing about is something only a or a criminal would do. There is a black market in fire arms but outlawing private sales will not make any difference,.Criminals don't care how many laws are in place.
The ATF doesn't require that the private seller keep any records, and the seller is only restricted if he has "reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms."
