Three Men Arrested After Buying Gun At Gun Show In OKC

[okiebryan]

Mass shootings are the specific event that has brought this issue to the front, aside from the Columbine shooters, (who used a straw buyer) are there any other mass shootings where it's been proven a gun show buy provided the gun(s) used?

The gun used in the recent shooting of the firemen was also obtained by a straw buy.

No, the newspaper article that showed that criminals are still buying guns at shows is what brought this to the front. It caused me to do a little research on the subject. It caused me to think about things I've observed at gun shows, but was naive enough to think that criminals didn't know how gun shows work. I mean we're all law abiding gun people here at the gun show, right? Not so much. I also naively assumed that anyone who comes to a gun show is doing their part to make sure that criminals don't just walk in and buy guns, because they cared about the health and future of our hobby more than cash. The recent ridiculousness regarding prices of certain weapons proved to me that a significant number of people in our community will knife their own mom in the back for the right dollar amount. A subset of those people are clearly willing to "unknowingly" (hint hint wink wink say n'more) sell to anyone for the right price.

Still waiting for someone (anyone) to specifically articulate exactly how requiring that any gun sold at a gun show is sold to someone who has had their background checked constitutes an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. Please, convince me that I'm wrong.

 

[okiebryan]

NICS has no "say" over private transactions
a) 10th Amendment Commerce Clause - feds have no authority over in-state sales
b) Federal and State firearm regulations are different

Therefore, saying "NICS check for private transaction" is one and the same as saying "no more private transactions" - the transactions will have to go through FFL.

Let it process for a second.

What you are proposing is no more private transactions! How long do you think before there is no more private ownership? You might have good intentions - but the only logical path for your thinking is disarming of the public. If you think that will stop criminals from obtaining firearms - just say so, quit beating around the bush.

Not sure that you even read what i propose. I propose that we do what Colorado did. Require every gun sold at a gun show to be subject to a background check on the buyer, so that OUR gun shows will no longer be seen by criminals as their own personal candy store.

And I don't want the Feds to do this, I want US to do it here in Oklahoma.

 

[Mr10mm]

I'm going with okiebryan on what he is wanting. I only read about 2 post but we need more laws and regulations. We should give a DNA sample, retinal scan at the minimum. Everyone knows the more laws we pass on gun control it cuts down on crime. We need to make it mandatory everyone fills out an sf-86 and is cleared before buying a gun.

 

[okiebryan]

I'm going with okiebryan on what he is wanting. I only read about 2 post but we need more laws and regulations. We should give a DNA sample, retinal scan at the minimum. Everyone knows the more laws we pass on gun control it cuts down on crime.

 

[Billybob]

Slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy. Unless you have evidence that what I propose will more than likely lead, through a series of steps to complete disarmament, then that argument is a fallacious argument.

Did you miss the part where I said this is not as much about preventing any felon from getting any gun, rather preventing criminals from using OUR gun shows to buy guns FROM people like us? I can't think of a better way to prevent that than what I suggest. Can you?

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. This is something that we can and should control. We need to clean up our own house, especially now that the dirty little secret is out.

[D. Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998). Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyers’ names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”[xi]

* Nationwide. Highly acclaimed civil rights attorney, researcher and author, David Kopel, has noted several states where either registration lists have been illegally compiled from background checks or where such registration lists have been abused by officials.[xii]

E. Gun registration can (and does) lead to the confiscation of firearms

1. New York City

* Registration. In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.[xiii]

* Confiscation. In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”[xiv]

2. California

* Part 1. The Golden State passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. [xv]

* Part 2. Having registered the firearms, the California Department of Justice issued a notice in 1999 to explain how more than 1,500 individuals in the state were in possession of illegal firearms-all of which were subject to forfeiture without compensation.[xvi]

* Part 3. Plans to confiscate firearms in California were leaked to the public in 1999, sending shock waves through the gun rights community. The document entitled “Relinquishment of Assault Weapons” stated: “Once the 90-day window of opportunity for turning in such assault weapons concludes, we will send each sheriff and police chief a listing of the affected individuals [who own banned firearms].”[xvii]]

http://gunowners.org/fs2011b.htm

 

[Mr10mm]

Not sure if your a great troll but if not I am sure you can get a job working for Dianne Feinstein.

 

[okiebryan]

Not sure if your a great troll but if not I am sure you can get a job working for Dianne Feinstein.

I have an opinion that you disagree with. No need to insult me. You know I'm not a troll, and if you don't know that, then you haven't been around for awhile.

 

[okiebryan]

[D. Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998). Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyers’ names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”[xi]

* Nationwide. Highly acclaimed civil rights attorney, researcher and author, David Kopel, has noted several states where either registration lists have been illegally compiled from background checks or where such registration lists have been abused by officials.[xii]

E. Gun registration can (and does) lead to the confiscation of firearms

1. New York City

* Registration. In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.[xiii]

* Confiscation. In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”[xiv]

2. California

* Part 1. The Golden State passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. [xv]

* Part 2. Having registered the firearms, the California Department of Justice issued a notice in 1999 to explain how more than 1,500 individuals in the state were in possession of illegal firearms-all of which were subject to forfeiture without compensation.[xvi]

* Part 3. Plans to confiscate firearms in California were leaked to the public in 1999, sending shock waves through the gun rights community. The document entitled “Relinquishment of Assault Weapons” stated: “Once the 90-day window of opportunity for turning in such assault weapons concludes, we will send each sheriff and police chief a listing of the affected individuals [who own banned firearms].”[xvii]]

http://gunowners.org/fs2011b.htm

So you post another slippery slope argument? Then back it up with events in other states that followed each other chronologically? Just because one thing followed another, it's not evidence of causation. Yesterday, I washed my car, and today it blew an engine. Therefore, car washes cause catastrophic engine failure. Another logical fallacy.

Do you seriously believe that if we put this into place in Oklahoma that it would lead to gun registration and confiscation in Oklahoma? Do you? Yes or no, please.

 

[AKguy1985]

well, this thread had certainly gotten interesting. My 2 cents: If some criminal wants a gun he will find a way, either by breaking into a house or car or otherwise.

 

[MoBoost]

And I don't want the Feds to do this, I want US to do it here in Oklahoma.

You don't want Feds to do this, you just want Fedral agency have ultimate say in each transaction. You want Oklahomans freely give up some more rights in exchange for Brady pat on the back ... Very nice.

You pretend to close gun show loop that doesn't exist anymore, but really going for private sale loop.