Virginia News Reporter Shot Live

[Rotobeast]

(08-27-2015, 05:37 PM)xxlt Wrote: What are the penalties for people buying drugs on the black market? Draconian. What are they for buying guns on the black market? Negligible (thanks gun lobby!). And the budget and LE focus on drugs are huge. On guns, its "meh." So that's how it is working. I would far rather see prisons filled with people who bought black market guns than black market drugs. Would the gun lobby? Nope. Wonder why? Oh, yeah, they sell the black market guns too.

There are penalties, on par (depending on severity and counts against an individual).

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law


A quick hit on Dealers and automatic weapons....


Dealers

Persons who engage in the business of buying or selling firearms must be licensed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the U.S. Department of Justice. A special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.
Violations of restrictions on Title II firearms and devices are punishable by a penalty of up to $10,000 and 10 years imprisonment.

[Rotobeast]

(08-27-2015, 06:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: Class of felony? Detection rate? Prosecution rate? Conviction rate? Those would be the things that matter.


On a side note, I suggested the punishment for drug offenders was draconian. By the way, that means barbaric, brutal, heavy handed, over the top. I suggested the penalties for gun offenses are not draconian, and we agree on that. But, I rather wish they were.

I do agree that drug punishments are hefty.

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 06:22 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: There are penalties, on par (depending on severity and counts against an individual).

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law


A quick hit on Dealers and automatic weapons....


Dealers

Persons who engage in the business of buying or selling firearms must be licensed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the U.S. Department of Justice. A special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.
Violations of restrictions on Title II firearms and devices are punishable by a penalty of up to $10,000 and 10 years imprisonment.

If I understand that right the 1986 law "signed by Bush" per another poster (wasn't Reagan President in 1986?) has a big hole in it - you could keep selling old guns just not new ones seems to be what it says. Useless, not common sense, to go back to the "what are common sense gun laws" question. And why does anyone need fully automatic weapons, no matter their age? Again, common sense - but Armageddon to gun enthusiasts.

Your point on the penalties is legit, but I am rather confident the DEA and local law enforcement budgets (and time invested in policing) dwarf the budget (money and time) for ATF. I would much rather the police were looking for people amassing an arsenal than people amassing weed. But, this scares the crap out of the gun lobby and their zombie consumers.

[CKwi88]

(08-27-2015, 05:33 PM)xxlt Wrote: Well, apparently those laws aren't in place (pretty sure they are not) or gun shops ignore them. 

I think what creates this perception is that in a large number of states people can buy firearms at gun shows without a requirement for a background check. Stores indeed do have a quick background check that goes to the FBI, and I think that the rejection rate is <1%.

[Rotobeast]

(08-27-2015, 06:36 PM)xxlt Wrote: If I understand that right the 1986 law "signed by Bush" per another poster (wasn't Reagan President in 1986?) has a big hole in it - you could keep selling old guns just not new ones seems to be what it says. Useless, not common sense, to go back to the "what are common sense gun laws" question. And why does anyone need fully automatic weapons, no matter their age? Again, common sense - but Armageddon to gun enthusiasts.

Your point on the penalties is legit, but I am rather confident the DEA and local law enforcement budgets (and time invested in policing) dwarf the budget (money and time) for ATF. I would much rather the police were looking for people amassing an arsenal than people amassing weed. But, this scares the crap out of the gun lobby and their zombie consumers.

Even though I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter, I really see no need for fully automatic weapons.
After the initial thrill wears off, it's just a waste of ammo, and a lot of barrels get warped from idiots overheating them.

Now, a bit concerning the hole you speak of (per Wikipedia).....

"However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Forgot to add the actual requirements to obtain a machinegun.....

"The ATF, as a representative of the U.S. and with authority from the National Firearms Act, can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian. An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval.[4]
The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer:[4]
executed under penalties of perjury[5]
both parties must reside in the same state as the individual
pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF[6]
the application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer[5][7]
the transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law
the transferee must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; and (2) fingerprints[7]
the transferee must submit with the application (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns
an appropriate (local) law enforcement official must certify whether he or she has any information indicating that the firearm will be used for other than lawful purposes or that possession would violate state or federal law[7]
the transferee must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation.[8]

If ATF denies an application, it must refund the tax.[4] Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers"

[Belsnickel]

This came across my Facebook page today and I found it interesting. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/we-are-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/ar-BBm8dbS?ocid=fbmsn

The tracker uses the metric of 4 or more people shot, whereas the FBI uses that many killed, so there is a likely intentional overestimate here. However, I think it is concerning there have been that many incidents with that many people shot as well. It'd be nice to figure out what is driving this crazy.

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 06:41 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I think what creates this perception is that in a large number of states people can buy firearms at gun shows without a requirement for a background check. Stores indeed do have a quick background check that goes to the FBI, and I think that the rejection rate is <1%.

So, there's our common sense gun law. Pass a background check OR just go to a gun show because, you know, if you are at a gun show we know you aren't crazy or a criminal. This is what passes for safety now and common sense.

How tough would it be with the interwebs to do the same checks at a show as you do in a store? Doesn't sound like too high a bar, but let's say it is. How about you go to your local pawn shop or gun dealer within a week of the big show and get a check done, then bring documentation of it and ID to the gun show to buy something? The same maroons who scream for voter ID will scream this is big brother running a ram rod up their rectums and taking away their guns!





But jake and Wayne LaPierre are right - there really are no common sense gun laws we could implement.

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 06:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Even though I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter, I really see no need for fully automatic weapons.
After the initial thrill wears off, it's just a waste of ammo, and a lot of barrels get warped from idiots overheating them.

Now, a bit concerning the hole you speak of (per Wikipedia).....

"However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Forgot to add the actual requirements to obtain a machinegun.....

"The ATF, as a representative of the U.S. and with authority from the National Firearms Act, can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian. An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval.[4]
The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer:[4]
executed under penalties of perjury[5]
both parties must reside in the same state as the individual
pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF[6]
the application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer[5][7]
the transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law
the transferee must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; and (2) fingerprints[7]
the transferee must submit with the application (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns
an appropriate (local) law enforcement official must certify whether he or she has any information indicating that the firearm will be used for other than lawful purposes or that possession would violate state or federal law[7]
the transferee must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation.[8]

If ATF denies an application, it must refund the tax.[4] Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers"

For what it is worth I have known several dudes who claimed to own or know people who owned machine guns. And they pretty much all said, "yeah, we don't do any of that crap the government says we are supposed to."

[xxlt]

Here's another crazy radical liberal gun law I would propose.

Or, one could call it common sense.

A lot of places have set up special drug courts or family courts due to need in the community. So, there is both precedent for and evidence of the need for a special gun court.

It took 3 and 1/2 years for the d-bag who killed people in a theater to get life in prison without parole. Could he claim self defense? No. Was there any doubt he was the killer? No. Did it matter if he was crazy? No. They will decide that now and put him in a regular prison or a psychiatric prison based on his evaluation.

So, why did it take 3 and 1/2 years to get to today. In part because the prosecutors wanted the death penalty, which is idiotic. He would have plead guilty as soon as he was charged and this could have been over a long time ago.
Especially if the case went to a special court with a docket that only handled gun cases.

So, how about we have special gun courts? You do a mass shooting, you rob a liquor store with a gun, you pop a cap in your ex-homey's ass, guess what? You go on a special court docket and everything is expedited. You have a right to an attorney but you want to plead not guilty? Fine, get ready for trial. It is in a week. If you are innocent you will be glad to get the b/s case out in the open and dismissed or beat the charge. If you are guilty then it will be shown. Soon. No death penalty, but minimum sentences something like this. You are convicted of using a gun in a crime you get 20 years minimum. You fired the gun (whether you hit anyone or not) during the crime you get 25 minimum. You get convicted of killing someone you get 35 years minimum. You get convicted of killing more than one person in the same episode you get life w/o parole. Period. And if you are crazy, we don't care. Not guilty by reason of insanity is not a plea. You are guilty if you are guilty. If you are crazy we will put you in the crazy pokey and not the regular big house.

Now good old Billy Joe "I sleep with a .38 under my pillow" All American can keep on keep on. He can sleep with his gun. He can shower with it. He can take it for rides in the car. He can concealed carry it (but not in schools, bars, or hospitals) and most of all he can use it every day of his life for self defense or never - whichever circumstances dictate. But Jimmy Jack "I shoot people because that's how I roll" Criminal either thinks long and hard about a new life of crime that doesn't involve shooting the old pistole or he goes bye-bye for a long time if he is convicted of using a gun in a crime or shooting someone.

I know, I know, it's madness. It is just a cover for big government to come and take your guns. You busted me. Hey, here they come. Hide the guns!

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 05:11 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: RICHARD SIMON LOS ANGELES TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- A rare piece of gun legislation finds the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the same side, and President Bush signed such a bill Tuesday.

The measure, Congress' response to last year's Virginia Tech shootings, is the first significant federal legislation in years aimed at tightening gun laws . It seeks to expand the federal database used to screen gun buyers to include the estimated 2 million-plus people, including felons and mentally ill individuals, who are ineligible to buy firearms.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 08:40 PM)xxlt Wrote: So, there's our common sense gun law. Pass a background check OR just go to a gun show because, you know, if you are at a gun show we know you aren't crazy or a criminal. This is what passes for safety now and common sense.

Okay, that's fine with me.

Do whatever, as long as it doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment.  Ensuring that someone is buying a gun is legally allowed to own a gun is fine with me. 

I don't think it's going to prevent any tragedies.  As I said, if I needed a gun to do something bad and didn't have one, I could have one inside an hour with no background check, but if doing this sort of thing make you feel better....have at it. 

At some point people on both sides of the political spectrum will learn that you can't legislate morality.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 09:02 PM)xxlt Wrote: So, how about we have special gun courts? You do a mass shooting, you rob a liquor store with a gun, you pop a cap in your ex-homey's ass, guess what? You go on a special court docket and everything is expedited. You have a right to an attorney but you want to plead not guilty? Fine, get ready for trial. It is in a week. If you are innocent you will be glad to get the b/s case out in the open and dismissed or beat the charge. If you are guilty then it will be shown. Soon. No death penalty, but minimum sentences something like this. You are convicted of using a gun in a crime you get 20 years minimum. You fired the gun (whether you hit anyone or not) during the crime you get 25 minimum. You get convicted of killing someone you get 35 years minimum. You get convicted of killing more than one person in the same episode you get life w/o parole. Period. And if you are crazy, we don't care. Not guilty by reason of insanity is not a plea. You are guilty if you are guilty. If you are crazy we will put you in the crazy pokey and not the regular big house.

I'd die for you to have the right to speak and have these opinions, but they make no sense at all to me. 

A crime is a crime.  Murder is murder, regardless if the weapon is a handgun or a louisville slugger.  You punish the outcome, not the weapon.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-27-2015, 12:26 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: What makes you think they wish it were the 60's?

Have you heard michelle obama's speeches at graduations? Also look at the way they inflame any hint of racial anything.

Harvard professor, Trayvon Martin, ferguson, baltimore, etc.

The proper response should be, those are local issues, not federal issues. Yet they both interject themselves where they shouldn't...

Just goes to show their black liberation Theology belief system.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-27-2015, 02:08 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: When ever you feel a pang of want for your long lost buddy SLS....Just take a gander at my sig and you'll be refreshed again.

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

































































Kind of like your mom.

[*Nately120*]

I haven't been following this closely, but in all seriousness as someone yet stated that the reporter and camera man might still be alive if only they had carried weapons of their own?

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-28-2015, 02:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I haven't been following this closely, but in all seriousness as someone yet stated that the reporter and camera man might still be alive if only they had carried weapons of their own?

Not when considering how unaware they were to their surroundings.

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2015, 03:01 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Not when considering how unaware they were to their surroundings.

I'm not saying it was a good argument, I'm just saying usually someone mentions more guns as the cure to gun violence and then gets kinda booed down rather quickly.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-28-2015, 03:04 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not saying it was a good argument, I'm just saying usually someone mentions more guns as the cure to gun violence and then gets kinda booed down rather quickly.  

I'M SORRY I RAINED ON YOUR PARADE!!!!!

[*rfaulk34*]

My vote for dumbest headline evAr.


"Exclusive Peek Inside Virginia Shooter Vester Flanagan's Bachelor Pad"
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virginia-tv-shooting/exclusive-peek-inside-virginia-shooter-vester-flanagans-bachelor-pad-n417346

Bachelor pad? Seriously?

The article is truly cutting-edge journalism.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 02:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Have you heard michelle obama's speeches at graduations?   Also look at the way they inflame any hint of racial anything.  

Harvard professor, Trayvon Martin, ferguson, baltimore, etc.  

The proper response should be, those are local issues, not federal issues.    Yet they both interject themselves where they shouldn't...  

Just goes to show their black liberation Theology belief system.

Or it shows they want race to not be an issue nationally...and not pockets of large cities too.

Could be that.