[FONT=Palatino Linotype]Larry, tell me how, exactly, buying a gun from a private citizen at a gunshow is any different from buying a gun from a private citizen from his home after answering an ad in a newspaper?
If I were financially broke and needed to raise cash by selling off my personal property, would it not stand to reason that I might sell a group of like items in an appropriate venue? One where I am reasonably assured of interested customers?
If I die, my brother gets my guns. He’s free to keep or sell as he pleases. What if he wants to sell all of them off? What would be more efficient: multiple ads in multiple newspapers, or $20 for a small table at a local gun show?
ExTank, you will note that none of the proposed legislation to close the “gun show loophole” does anything to prevent private sellers from offering their goods at gun shows.
There are two basic models-- 1) Your sale is mediated through a licensed dealer, who performs the background check and keeps records of the transaction. 2) Prospective buyers are required to pay a fee ($10) to a licensed dealer for a background check before buying from private tables.
Didn’t you used to be able to discuss this subject reasonably and rationally? “What the fuck do you need a gun for?” is hardly the same as “Eat shit and die, all you gun owning pussies!” Not to mention the lame-ass strawmen. I mean, really, how often do you see gun control types who also want to kill the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments?
I mean, jeez, I actually bother to open up another gun control thread 'cause I see that you’re the last poster, and this is what I get for bothering? Sheesh.
Very nice. I assume that, henceforth, you will refrain from criticizing the laws of all nations other than the U.S.?
Oh, piss off. We’re talking about legislation tabled by your own elected representatives. It’s not my idea.
The OP trotted out some bullshit “The evil liberal is threatening my second amendment rights!” line, what, I should refrain from mocking his ignorant ass because I’m in another country?
“AAAAH! JOHN KERRY WANTS MY GUNS! HE’S GONNA PUT A BARCODE ON MY HAND AND ENSLAVE ME TO THE BEAST!”
Seriously, talking to some Americans about gun issues is fascinating. It’s like they have no capacity for rational thought on the subject. If it’s remotely legislative, and has anything to do with gun ownership, it’s The Worst Thing Ever. Never mind that there might actually be solid reasoning behind it.
You ask what the difference is between a private seller with a table at a gun show and a private seller advertising through the classifieds. The difference is that the BATF has long been complaining that current legislation allows a lot of hardware to move through private sales at gun shows with practically no regulation. For instance, Tim McVeigh unloaded (erm, you know what I mean) something like $40,000 worth of stolen hardware at gun shows. It’s kind of hard to do that through ads in the Buy & Sell without attracting attention or leaving a trail for investigators.
Lawmakers feel a need for this legislation because they’ve noted a lot of shady dealings at gun shows. People who constantly trade in large volumes of firearms, for profit, without registering as a dealer. People selling stolen guns. And yes, a common route for people who ought not to have guns to get them. Nothing too hard to deal with without fucking things up for honest people.
What are you trying to argue by putting forth this false equivalence between private sales at gun shows and private sales through classifieds?
Also note that anyone (provided you are not a convicted felon and are of legal age) can, given enough paperwork and money, obtain any firearm you wish (including fully automatic, militarized weapons) in almost every state in the union. All legislation to this point has done is make it more difficult for some people to get guns, not to own them.
I will never understand the “pry it out of my cold dead hands” argument of conservative nor the “ban 'em all!” attitude of liberals.
I was raised on a farm and with a hunting family. I like guns. I think they’re neat. But even an idiot like me can see that there is a big difference between the purpose and use of a .50 black powder rifle, a Belgian Browning 12 gauge, a MAC 10, an AK-47, a Satuday Night Special, and a plastic 9mm.
In a perfect world people on both sides would recognize the difference. Since no one does I’ll sit over here as the world’s only fire arm moderate.
Any person with an FFL can obtain a Class 3 SOT. However, it is not accurate to assume that once a person has a Class 3, he can buy any machine gun he wants, whenever he wants.
Also… it is not accurate to assume that a person NEEDS a Class 3 SOT and an FFL to own or purchase a machine gun. Joe Citizen doesn’t need a class 3 license to buy a machine gun. That is a dealer’s license!
What exactly is a special occupational taxpayer, and how do you qualify to be one? (The abbreviation is fleshed out via Google but there is no description/definition of the term that I can find.)
Since this is the Pit, I’ll raise a Michael Moore-related question. I saw Columbine recently and still cannot work out Moore’s stance with relation to ownership of guns. He seems to like them and be good at using them, but at the same time to look down his nose at rough looking white people who congregate on misty Fall mornings to use them. (Even though he actually blends in rather well among them.) He also seems to disapprove of Walmart for selling ammo. He clearly disapproves of Charlton Heston.
What exactly does he think re guns themselves - as the things that killed a lot of innocent people in the school in the title? What does he want to do about them?
Basically, if a dealer wants to sell machine guns, he pays the government additional taxes to do so. He then receives a Tax Stamp, which is just a receipt saying that he has paid he occupational taxes to the BATF. This allows him to sell and transfer registered machine guns. A Class 2 SOT costs a little more money for the right to manufacture new machine guns. And a Class 1 SOT gives you the right to import them.
Whenever a Class III dealer sells a machine gun to an individual, that person pays the dealer for the gun, including sales tax. And then the BATF charges an immediate $200 tax on it. Once that tax is paid and the sale is approved, the individual can take his machine gun home. Woohoo!! Sometimes this can take a while! It usually takes a couple months, but I’ve seen it take many months for the approval and paperwork to go through. But once it is approved, the machine gun is now REGISTERED to that owner in the NFA Registry. The buyer receives a Tax Stamp stating he’s paid his $200 dollars and can legally own the machine gun. That tax stamp is what allows the person to own a machine gun. It is not a Class III License. It is a Tax Stamp! Completely different animal.
Yes, there are states that make this more complicated, but this is how it works at the federal level. If one lives in a nice gun friendly state, (Florida) no additional permits or licenses will be required.
One thing I like to point out to people that is not always obvious! People don’t realize why the ATF deals with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. What do they all have in common? Taxes! There are special taxes on those items and the government wants their money! That’s what the ATF is all about. Collecting taxes. This is why they are part of the Department of the Treasury!
Thanks for that. Does the approval fron BATF relate purely to objective criteria such as absence of criminal record, age, etc., or is their any kind of subjective process, e.g. questionnaire, interview?
Is the bottom line that anyone with a clean record can own a machine gun, if they so wish? What do they use it for? Target practice?
If they were to kill an intruder with one, all other things being equal, would there be problems by sheer dint of the fact they used such a weapon, rather than a handgun?
Pretty much. As long as you’re not a felon, you’re 21, you’re not mentally ill, a wife beater, etc, you can buy one. There is no interview or questionaire, but there is a section for the Sheriff (I’m almost positive a judge can too) to sign. All this signature is supposed to mean is that there is no reason, criminally, that forbid you from purchasing a machine gun. Many Sheriffs in the state, think this gives them the power to prevent machine guns from being purchased in their county. It’s pretty messed up, because this was not the intent of the ATF. The Sheriff is not supposed to have the power to grant or deny a transfer based on his political stance on gun ownership. But the vast majority of Sheriffs in the state will REFUSE to sign a transfer form on principle alone! But this does not entirely work. Not only can a person own a machine gun, but a corporation may too. And there is no line for a Sheriff to sign on a transfer to a corporation. It’s not like the Sheriff can do a criminal back ground check on a company.
So all a person needs to do to get around the Sheriff is to incorporate. Pay the state some money and start the Roger Thornhill, INC. Then Roger Thornhill, INC can go buy a machine gun. There are several advantages and a few fiscal disadvantages to owning machine guns through a corporation.
What do they use them for? Because they’re just so damn cool. There are many annual events one can take his machine guns to and blast away at old cars and other neat shit. You can take them to the range, improve your skill… They’re just fun. I can’t explain it. Why do some people enjoy buying/collecting stamps??? Beats me!
I have no cites to back this up, and as long as I’ve looked, I’ve never been able to know this for sure. But:
It’s pretty much accepted in the gun community that you will get in a lot of trouble if you use a machine gun in self defense.
However, I couldn’t imagine, that given the right scenario where your only option was shot someone with a machinegun or die, that you would be in some kind of trouble.
Basically, if you keep a loaded machine gun by the night stand and you shoot an intruder one night. It’s pretty obvious that you were employing that weapon for the purpose of home defense. You’ll get in trouble for that.
But, if somehow there was a situation where you happened to only have your machine gun nearby and someone was about to kill you. And you needed to save your life… then you should be ok. But home/self defense is not a valid legal reason to own a machine gun. Investment or collection are.
But surely the first reason you give (cunningly listed with two other nutty reasons) is true for some people? It basically aligns with what some people see as the spirit of the Constitution, especially the second and third amendments, if I recall the numbering correctly.
I’d just like to state that I’ve been a liberal for 20-plus-some years, and I have yet to meet a genuine ban-all-guns liberal. I’m working on the theory that it’s a bogeyman that gets dragged out for Halloween horror stories at NRA get-togethers.
Heh heh. Those people might as well turn to amulets and hex signs for that warm fuzzy feeling of security against the government. Last time I looked, those motherfuckers had tanks, gunships, and tactical nukes.
“General Veers, the Methamphetamine Militia controls these hills. Intelligence reports they are armed with 1,500 MP5s. What are your orders?” “Vapourize them. And then let’s get lunch. How about Thai?”
To seriously answer your question, roger, guns are fun. Fully automatic weapons are even more fun. Obviously it isn’t for everyone, but then again, not everyone likes stamps, coins, skydiving or horseback riding.
But those hobbies don’t have the potential to kill other people, unless you decide not to open the chute, perhaps. And even then you’d need to be pretty accurate, not to mention brave.
To expand on that, obviously some people are just nuts. But for most people, it’s either an issue of having a particular gun for a collection, or just having an automatic for taking to the range and unloading $50 of ammo in five minutes at a piece of paper.
