Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,571

A modest gun control proposal (that I doubt has much support on either side)


There's a rumor floating around that one of the proposals the White House is weighing is a phone app to allow private parties to conduct their own NICS checks.

I can think of various reasons conservatives probably would not support a proposal like this, but I would imagine the dems aren't very enthused about it either. Giving every smart phone user a way to check if someone is a prohibited person kind of defeats those "ban the box" campaigns, doesn't it?
  #2  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:02 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,615
I was going to post that "this vicious assault on the Second Amendment shows the Trump Administration is coming to take your guns and we need to get him out and put a real gun-loving Republican in the White House."

But then I read (from your link): 'Trump initially appeared open to expanding background checks following two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, last month, but backed off after pressure from the National Rifle Association.'

So that's all right then - the NRA is looking out for us all.
  #3  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:04 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've long supported the notion as part of eliminating or reducing the private sale exemption to background checks. Privacy matters; without controls it could be a way to check people you aren't selling a gun to for mental health issues. The devil is in the details but I kind of hope there's some work being put into crafting a good proposal to take advantage of tech that didn't exist when we put the current background check system in place.
  #4  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:15 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a rumor floating around that one of the proposals the White House is weighing is a phone app to allow private parties to conduct their own NICS checks.

I can think of various reasons conservatives probably would not support a proposal like this, but I would imagine the dems aren't very enthused about it either. Giving every smart phone user a way to check if someone is a prohibited person kind of defeats those "ban the box" campaigns, doesn't it?
It's not as bad as paying over $100 to give my child a firearm (FFL will charge, plus Cali fees including mandatory safety test).

But I am also concerned that NICS checks can be used to create a list of firearm owners to facilitate confiscation.
  #5  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
... But I am also concerned that NICS checks can be used to create a list of firearm owners to facilitate confiscation.
This is probably the biggest concern I've heard among gun owners. And stories like this one reinforce those concerns.
  #6  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:57 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
I'd be skeptical if the government could deploy something reliable at scale for a reasonable cost.

Alternatively, Andrew McCabe recently wrote about 2 potential things that could be beneficial, and I'd be in favor of one (reverting to previous interpretation of what it means to be a fugitive) , and conditionally in favor of the other (allowable delay in NICS verification [ but only up to a certain amount, maybe less than 10 days])
  #7  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:04 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,178
I think that something like this could actually be a useful part of a deal to get "universal background checks". Not necessarily a "smartphone app" as such, but some kind of federal government web site (along with a toll-free phone number for people who are still marooned in the 1990s) whereby if Alice wants to sell Bob one of her guns (Sure-Fire Firearms Model X, serial number XYZ123), she can enter Bob's info and get back a "YES, you may lawfully convey a firearm to this person" or a "NO, you may NOT lawfully convey a firearm to this person" message. Alice would then get some kind of receipt with all the relevant info about the transaction--along with a fancy barcode on it to prove authenticity--that she can keep to prove she did her due diligence. I suppose Bob could get a print-out too, if he wants one, but it wouldn't be as relevant for him.

So, Sure-Fire Firearms Model X, serial number XYZ123 gets used in a crime. (Maybe the cops find it right at the scene and everything.) The ATF goes to Sure-Fire and says "Who'd you sell #XYZ123" to? They reply "Oh, that was part of a shipment to Joe's Gunshop in Anytown, USA, FFL #4567890". ATF goes to Joe's Gunshop and says "Who'd you sell Sure-Fire Firearms #XYZ123 to?" Joe pulls his Form 4473 and gives them Alice's info. (Up to this point, this is how I understand the system works right now.) So, ATF goes to Alice and says "Hey, do you still have Sure-Fire Firearms #XYZ123?" She says "Why, no, I sold it to Bob. Here's my receipt from universalbackgroundchecks dot gov". So, on to Bob. Maybe Bob has a receipt of his own, and the ATF goes to track down Charlie. Maybe Bob says "Oh, that's my gun that was stolen--here's the police report". Or maybe Bob doesn't have a receipt from universalbackgroundchecks dot gov, or any other lawful account of where Sure-Fire Firearms #XYZ123 wound up ("I transferred it to my son, Bob, Jr., in accordance with the Close Family Members Exception of the Universal Background Checks Act"), in which case Bob is in Big Trouble (he's actually guilty of the crime that's being investigated) or at least in Serious Trouble (he has an iron-clad alibi for the crime that's being investigated, but is still looking at federal charges for a gun sale that he didn't bother to do a background check on, where the buyer wound up committing a crime with that gun--even if Bob gets no prison time, since we're trying to reduce "mass incarceration" in this country, he's still saying "bye-bye" to any right to legally own guns himself).

(Note that Bob could have passed the background check, but still be the criminal. "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results." But on the other hand, after they give you the PPINGOFR disclaimer, all the stock prospectuses give you information on past performance, because what else can they do? So, Bob is arrested, but Alice and Joe's Gunshop and Sure-Fire Firearms are all off the hook, since they all did what they were supposed to do.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Giving every smart phone user a way to check if someone is a prohibited person kind of defeats those "ban the box" campaigns, doesn't it?
So, universalbackgroundchecks dot gov has a big screen that says "You agree, under penalty of perjury, that you are conducting this background check as part of a lawful firearms transaction to which both parties agree" (or something like that) and you have to check a little box which counts as your e-signature. Of course Mrs. Grundy might just ignore that statement, and I doubt much effort would be put into actually tracking down people who abuse the system. But realistically, what does Mrs. Grundy get? She gets the biographical information on Dave, next door. (Maybe she goes through his garbage on trash day.) She commits some kind of federal crime by running an unauthorized background check on him. And...she gets a message that says "YES, you may lawfully convey a firearm to this person"--which doesn't actually tell her if Dave has any guns or not, or anything much about Dave's medical and mental health history beyond that he hasn't actually been involuntarily committed, and doesn't tell Mrs. Grundy if Dave was ever tried for a felony but acquitted, or if he was charged with a felony but the charges were dropped. Or, Mrs. Grundy runs Edna (from the house on the other side of her) through the system and gets the "NO, you may NOT lawfully convey a firearm to this person" message. So, Mrs. Grundy has committed a federal crime, and found out that Edna is a serial killer. Or that Edna was convicted of lying to the feds about an insider trading case ten years ago. Or that Edna spent a few weeks in a mental hospital when she was in college. Or that Edna was charged with a felony, but the charges were dropped, but the Podunk P.O. are lousy at record-keeping and reporting and poor Edna may be in for a Big Surprise someday when she gets pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Or that Mrs. Grundy screwed up Edna's biographical info and got a background check for some other person. Note that there's no reason why the system would need to be set up to give a user (authorized or not) more than a "YES/NO" decision, so Mrs. Grundy (who, again, has knowingly violated federal law) hasn't actually managed to get that much information for her (potentially serious) trouble.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #8  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,571
There's a number McCabe leaves out of his article: how many times did the FBI delay a purchase for 3 business days for a qualified buyer? I'll feel differently about his proposal if it was 4,000 out of 8,000 delayed purchases that were ultimately found to be prohibited persons than I will about 4,000 out of 40,000 or 400,000.
  #9  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:58 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
But I am also concerned that NICS checks can be used to create a list of firearm owners to facilitate confiscation.
I thought Bill Clinton already confiscated all of the guns in America. And then Barack Obama did it again.

On a more realistic level, I'd be concerned about this system being abused the way DinoR described. What's going to keep people from using this just to check if people they know have a criminal history or record of mental illness or have been accused of domestic problems?

On an effectiveness level, will this proposal have any teeth? If private gun owners aren't required to do background checks or if there are no meaningful consequences for not doing them, then this is just a symbolic gesture.
  #10  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:49 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I thought Bill Clinton already confiscated all of the guns in America. And then Barack Obama did it again.

On a more realistic level, I'd be concerned about this system being abused the way DinoR described. What's going to keep people from using this just to check if people they know have a criminal history or record of mental illness or have been accused of domestic problems?

On an effectiveness level, will this proposal have any teeth? If private gun owners aren't required to do background checks or if there are no meaningful consequences for not doing them, then this is just a symbolic gesture.
Skipping the silly 1st para...

What currently keeps FFLs fron doing that now?

If private owners aren't required to check, or no consequences, then there is no need for regular folks to access the database. At present, though, I live and work in a state that makes me jump though several hoops to exercise my Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many here are fine with that, but if the Second Amendment can be so easily ignored, we all should worry about which rights will be next.
  #11  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:56 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Giving every smart phone user a way to check if someone is a prohibited person kind of defeats those "ban the box" campaigns, doesn't it?
I haven't thought through all the ramifications, but disallowing use except for to verify eligibility for a firearm sale and requiring the person to approve lookups of their eligibility

Authentication could be done... however it's currently done for a background check? That is, no one would be able to look up your info until you had set up an account and proved who you are to the same extent that you currently have to be, and you'd have to consent to each lookup.
  #12  
Old 09-25-2019, 05:10 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Skipping the silly 1st para...
It may be silly but conservatives keep saying it every election. They keep telling us that if the wrong persons elected, it will mean all our guns will be confiscated.

But sometimes the wrong person gets elected anyway, and you know what? We still have guns.

Conservatives need to stop crying wolf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
If private owners aren't required to check, or no consequences, then there is no need for regular folks to access the database. At present, though, I live and work in a state that makes me jump though several hoops to exercise my Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many here are fine with that, but if the Second Amendment can be so easily ignored, we all should worry about which rights will be next.
I agree with this. I think the Second Amendment is a outdated idea and it should be repealed. But as long as it's part of the Constitution, it's the law and we should follow it.
  #13  
Old 09-25-2019, 05:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It may be silly but conservatives keep saying it every election. They keep telling us that if the wrong persons elected, it will mean all our guns will be confiscated. ...
I don't know about the word "all" there. It seems like you're trying to construct a strawman argument. But it's a pretty weak point you're making here anyways, at least as long as Beto is running around the country all "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15!"
  #14  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:06 PM
jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is probably the biggest concern I've heard among gun owners. And stories like this one reinforce those concerns.
Michigan has had handgun registration since I think before I was born. Nobody has come to take my guns.
  #15  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:07 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know about the word "all" there. It seems like you're trying to construct a strawman argument. But it's a pretty weak point you're making here anyways, at least as long as Beto is running around the country all "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15!"
You should use "Mexico will pay for the wall" as your baseline between what politicians say and what they actually do.
  #16  
Old 09-30-2019, 01:10 AM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,674
Maybe. But the statement demonstrates intent, regardless of the ability to implement.

Beto has made that a plank of the democrat's platform no matter how much they attempt to distance themselves from it.

Last edited by Projammer; 09-30-2019 at 01:11 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-30-2019, 11:25 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,279
No, he hasn't.

One candidate for the nomination making a statement doesn't get something into the party platform. This is true even if that candidate wins the nomination, which Beto isn't likely to (though winning the nomination would improve the chances.)

What [ETA: it reads as if] you mean is that, even if a candidate who disagrees vehemently with Beto on this issue actually wins the nomination, and no matter what the party platform actually says, some people who are opposed to any Democrat being elected will try to use Beto's statement, no matter how irrelevant, to discourage votes for the actual candidate; and, further, [ETA: I expect] that these people will try to claim that Beto said he wants to confiscate all firearms, which is not at all what he said. This is true, but I don't see what the Democrats can do about it.

Last edited by thorny locust; 09-30-2019 at 11:28 AM.
  #18  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:56 AM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
It's not as bad as paying over $100 to give my child a firearm (FFL will charge, plus Cali fees including mandatory safety test).

But I am also concerned that NICS checks can be used to create a list of firearm owners to facilitate confiscation.
You bring up two points that I agree with. "Universal background checks" sounds all fine and dandy, but it becomes an onerous problem for many transactions, depending on how much local FFLs charge to do the background check and transfer. In my gun-friendly area, gun stores charge $25 to $50 to do the check and transfer. That's not inconsequential if you are talking about a cheap firearm that you are selling for $150 to $300. It's much worse in other areas, however. I've read that gun stores in Washington DC and in the San Francisco area charge $100 to $200 to do the check/transfer. I've said before that I don't have a huge problem with universal background checks if it was free or no more than $10 for administration.
  #19  
Old 10-01-2019, 08:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orwell View Post
It's much worse in other areas, however. I've read that gun stores in Washington DC and in the San Francisco area charge $100 to $200 to do the check/transfer. I've said before that I don't have a huge problem with universal background checks if it was free or no more than $10 for administration.
In CA, for in state transfers, the fee is capped by law at all FFLs. $25 for the DROS, and up to $10 per firearm for the transfer. Out of state there is no cap so most FFLs will charge at least $100. DROS is still $25.
  #20  
Old 10-01-2019, 08:54 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
It's not as bad as paying over $100 to give my child a firearm (FFL will charge, plus Cali fees including mandatory safety test).

But I am also concerned that NICS checks can be used to create a list of firearm owners to facilitate confiscation.
As someone who didn't grow up in the United States the single most mind boggling cultural adjustment has been this. Who the heck gives their child a firearm in the first place?!
  #21  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:49 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
I think that something like this could actually be a useful part of a deal to get "universal background checks". Not necessarily a "smartphone app" as such, but some kind of federal government web site (along with a toll-free phone number for people who are still marooned in the 1990s) whereby if Alice wants to sell Bob one of her guns (Sure-Fire Firearms Model X, serial number XYZ123), she can enter Bob's info and get back a "YES, you may lawfully convey a firearm to this person" or a "NO, you may NOT lawfully convey a firearm to this person" message. Alice would then get some kind of receipt with all the relevant info about the transaction--along with a fancy barcode on it to prove authenticity--that she can keep to prove she did her due diligence. I suppose Bob could get a print-out too, if he wants one, but it wouldn't be as relevant for him.
...
This could work, and in general i am in favor of the idea. Better than requiring all sales go thru a dealer, who will charge big bux.

As DinoR sez- The devil is in the details.
  #22  
Old 10-01-2019, 11:52 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
As someone who didn't grow up in the United States the single most mind boggling cultural adjustment has been this. Who the heck gives their child a firearm in the first place?!
My Dad gave me a single shot .22 after I completed the Boy Scouts class on gun safety.

It was a target gun, and I shot it in some competitions.

How early do you think they start Olympic training?

I imagine in other nations this is true also.
  #23  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:14 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a number McCabe leaves out of his article: how many times did the FBI delay a purchase for 3 business days for a qualified buyer? I'll feel differently about his proposal if it was 4,000 out of 8,000 delayed purchases that were ultimately found to be prohibited persons than I will about 4,000 out of 40,000 or 400,000.
Yeah, I know - gotta have that gun right here and now!

I must be a big damn hero to face life's dangers without one, for the equivalent of nearly 8000 three-day waiting periods.
  #24  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:18 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree with this. I think the Second Amendment is a outdated idea and it should be repealed. But as long as it's part of the Constitution, it's the law and we should follow it.
Whatever it might mean, which of course is the very unsettled part.
  #25  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:29 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In CA, for in state transfers, the fee is capped by law at all FFLs. $25 for the DROS, and up to $10 per firearm for the transfer. Out of state there is no cap so most FFLs will charge at least $100. DROS is still $25.
Is it crazy to suggest that people with Federal Firearms Licenses who are able to perform checks on the National Instant Criminal background check system, (run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation) charge fees capped at a reasonable level by the Federal Government, rather than rely on individual states to do it?

I believe that universal background checks are supported by both sides of the aisle, generally speaking, and there's an entire industry dedicated to firearms who perform these 'instant' checks all the time. Is it REALLY that onerous for a FFL dealer to perform a check for a private sale, that they need to charge hundreds of dollars?

The dealers can somehow survive with a $25 fee for 5 minutes of work processing and certifying the validity of a firearm transfer.
  #26  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:38 PM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
As someone who didn't grow up in the United States the single most mind boggling cultural adjustment has been this. Who the heck gives their child a firearm in the first place?!
I'm not understanding the mind being boggled. A father says to his son or daughter, who is now 18 or 21 or 30 years old, "Here. This Winchester is now yours.". Or Pops dies, and his will indicates that his firearms are to be split up amongst his offspring (is that a better word than "child"). For all intents and purposes, my father "gave" me my first rifle and shotgun when I was 12 years old and started hunting. He kept track of them until I was 18 or so, but I could take them out shooting or hunting anytime I wanted to. I still own them and have never had to fill out any government paperwork (as it should be).

In the vast majority of US states, guns are not "registered" to an owner, at least as one thinks of vehicles or houses being registered or titled to a person. On a federal level, only Class 3 firearms (machine guns) are registered to a specific person.
  #27  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:45 PM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Is it crazy to suggest that people with Federal Firearms Licenses who are able to perform checks on the National Instant Criminal background check system, (run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation) charge fees capped at a reasonable level by the Federal Government, rather than rely on individual states to do it?

I believe that universal background checks are supported by both sides of the aisle, generally speaking, and there's an entire industry dedicated to firearms who perform these 'instant' checks all the time. Is it REALLY that onerous for a FFL dealer to perform a check for a private sale, that they need to charge hundreds of dollars?

The dealers can somehow survive with a $25 fee for 5 minutes of work processing and certifying the validity of a firearm transfer.
I am not an FFL, but my understanding is that a licensee pays nothing to the FBI for a background check. That's ZERO. MY state has a separate state check which costs the FL $4.00. But gun stores still charge anywhere from $25 to $50 to do a background check and transfer. They are in business to make money, which I understand, but if background checks are limited to the few people who actually hold FFLs, they are free to charge for their time/inconvenience/government restriction.

I have already written my legislators saying if universal background checks become a reality, the checks should be no more than $10, whether I can do it myself or have to go to a gun store.
  #28  
Old 10-01-2019, 04:21 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
. . . Andrew McCabe recently wrote about 2 potential things that could be beneficial, and I'd be in favor of one (reverting to previous interpretation of what it means to be a fugitive) , . . .
As used in the Gun Control Act (as amended by Brady) , the term "fugitive from justice" has been defined in federal law since the day the Brady Act's ink dried back in 1994, 921(A)(15):
"The term “fugitive from justice” means any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding."
Fleeing from the state is a requirement in the law. As it was employed during the Obama years, it barred people who have not been convicted of anything. Is a gun prohibition spelled out anywhere in federal law for anyone who simply has an arrest warrant?

If they wanted to, Congress could include warrants in the 922(n) prohibition. 922(n) covers people under indictment:
"It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
When filling out the 4473, the transferee must answer yes or no, "Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (question 11.b).

That is asked BEFORE "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?" (question 11.c).

And that is asked BEFORE "Are you a fugitive from justice?" (question 11d).

Nowhere is any question about a warrant presented.

Seems to me throwing a half-million people who just had an arrest warrant into the 922(g) pool of prohibitions was just an easy (illegal) way to put a disability on those people without having any manner of due process.

.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017