On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:07:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?


I haven't missed anything. A law with a permit process, like some states
already has, doesn't depend on both parties being law abiding. It relies
on gun stores and private sellers to be law abiding. Which, I thought
was the argument of the gun advocates, that almost all these people
are law abiding. So, if Cruz comes to Dicks without a permit, you're
saying they would just sell him guns without him supplying a valid permit?
If he came to you for a private sale, you'd sell him a gun without a
permit?

With hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year (250,000-600,000
depending on who you believe), nobody needs to come to me or Dick to
get one, no questions asked. They are not filling out 4473s and
calling the feds when they sell a stolen gun.



The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

I have no problem with any new laws having exemptions for temporary,
legitimate lending of a weapon between family members for short
periods. See how easy that was? Was Cruz a family member?


Lanza was but I guess he might not have asked if he could borrow his
mother's AR before he shot her in the head.
Unfortunately none of the law makers are willing to put any wiggle
room in the definition of "transfer" and would even include renting a
gun at a range. Most of the proposals would not even let me store it
there since that would be a transfer.
That is why we say "sensible gun laws" usually aren't.