They'll sell it as a ban on civilian ownership of "military weapons", but the definition of a "military weapon" will be "any weapon which has been procured by the military, and any weapon which is based on any weapon procured by the military". So... no guns or knives with one Act of Congress.
They'll sell it as a ban on civilian ownership of "military weapons", but the definition of a "military weapon" will be "any weapon which has been procured by the military, and any weapon which is based on any weapon procured by the military". So... no guns or knives with one Act of Congress.
Government having the info may not infringe on your rights but it's proven fact historically that it damn well can.
The unregistered guns used by the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to spark their resistance didn't have trigger locks either.
The unregistered guns used by the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to spark their resistance didn't have trigger locks either.
the infringement is forcing you to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm..... in the strictest sense.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that a background check is not much of a price to pay to exercise a right?
FAL Guy: cite? It is my understanding that FFLs have the option of disposing of the forms after ten years, and further that some (though not all) FFLs choose to exercise that option. Are you asserting that such an option does not exist?
Couldn't agree more.
No, I wasn't saying that at all.
I thought a "right" was something that was automatic.
Now that you bring it up....
For a minute let's just forget the things like abuses of the system, incompetence, discrimination....let's pretend they don't exist.
Under those circumstances, does anyone feel that screening potential buyers specifically for violent criminal history & mental illness would be a reasonable step to take?
I'm not talking about scrutinizing people to the Nth degree over a fistfight they had when they were young or having taken anti-depressants, I'm talking about cases where there have been convictions or unvoluntary commitments.(let's say it'd really work that way)
Does that seem unreasonable?
The month following my daughter dying from sudden infant death syndrome in 07' I went to the doctor's office. They gave me this questionnaire about depression and asked if I was depressed. After hearing all the stuff about depression and firearms ownership after the Virginia Tech shooting it made me paranoid as hell cause of course after losing a kid I wasn't exactly happy.
If a doctor, or even a handful of doctors can say someone is mentally unstable or depressed etc and it infringes on their right to arms when nothing is wrong with the person we have someone that has been found guilty outside of any court what so ever and convicted without any jury.
If a doctor, or even a handful of doctors can say someone is mentally unstable or depressed etc and it infringes on their right to arms when nothing is wrong with the person we have someone that has been found guilty outside of any court what so ever and convicted without any jury.
After further search I am partly wrong. For completed sales, an FFL must keep the 4473s for a period of 20 years, for denials the 4473s must be kept for a period of 5 years. The ATF approved bound books must be kept in perpetuity....uh, for ever.
Certainly not but the place you are talking about is "the perfect world" and,as we all know,it doesn't exist.We need to remember that as flawed as they are ,our regulations concerning firearms ownership are some of the least intrusive and permissive in the modern world(at least for now!!). Steve
Similar threads
