Bucks county Democratic wants to close the PA state loophole

[39flathead]

Precisely. Which is why BC's are the least we can do.

I'm willing to do my small part in effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals instead of acting like a ignorant neanderthal.

By the judgement of many in this thread they should enjoy their time on the ultra far right, making them little different than the morons on the ultra far left who are unwilling to work together with anybody not like them.

You can already demand that someone buying a firearm from you go to a FFL for the "transfer", it is then up to the buyer to either agree or go elsewhere to buy.

How many firearms used in crimes are bought via private sales?
(according to the Bureau of Justice, very very few)

If universal checks are instituted, how are they going to stop a gangbangers girlfriend from legally buying the gun via the background check and then simply breaking the law anyway and giving it to him?
(according to the Bureau of Justice, this is how the majority of criminals get their guns)

Are universal checks going to stop the theft and sale of guns between drug users and their dealers?
(according to the Bureau of Justice, this ranks right up there with straw sales in regards to how criminals obtain guns)

[ragequit]

Not sure how its not?

Want to try that again? Perhaps in a way that actually makes sense?

Anybody can use the current method and obtain a firearm with zero resistance. And in such a case YOU could end up the victim. Is that what you want? To unknowingly sell your firearm to some nutjob in which he goes out and uses it to commit a crime?

This literally makes no sense and is literally not an argument.

By your logic, anyone can murder someone, therefore we should ban all weapons because we could maybe possibly be a victim in the future. ...what?

But I guess all is well when you sleep blissfully ignorant at night thinking you are relieved 100% of responsibility.

That's a lot of snark from someone that failed to answer some pretty simple questions and failed to properly convey a single argument for one's position.

[ragequit]

Precisely. Which is why BC's are the least we can do.

I'm willing to do my small part in effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals instead of acting like a ignorant neanderthal.

By the judgement of many in this thread they should enjoy their time on the ultra far right, making them little different than the morons on the ultra far left who are unwilling to work together with anybody not like them.

...So am I aN (not a) "ignorant neanderthal" or am I a 'moron?'

If you're going to call people ignorant, maybe you should proofread your post/learn basic grammar first? And actually having an argument would probably help, too...

[mikelets456]

Precisely. Which is why BC's are the least we can do.

I'm willing to do my small part in effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals instead of acting like a ignorant neanderthal.

By the judgement of many in this thread they should enjoy their time on the ultra far right, making them little different than the morons on the ultra far left who are unwilling to work together with anybody not like them.

Btw, for the record there is no such thing as " ultra far right" in the USA. There are anarchists, libertarians ( limited government) and big government. Which one are you? See, I consider myself a moderate because I support limited government.... The middle of the scale.

So, which are you? A Neanderthal, moderate or Marxist?

[alton woods]

Youtube video.....

Stevie Youtube video

[Ewussor]

I've never committed a crime.

My hat is off to you because I've never met anyone who, if you dig deeply enough, has truly never committed a crime of any sort.

My guess is that what you really mean is that you've never been arrested. But that doesn't mean you haven't committed any crimes. You see our laws are now so bloody complicated that just about everyone has violated them at some point.

[Ewussor]

New York City is flooded with guns, and they mostly aren't stolen, that huge market is primarily serviced by people driving down to the states that allow no-question private sales.

Wait, since when is it legal for me, a PA resident, to sell a long-gun to a resident of NY, or for a FL resident to sell a pistol to a resident of NY in a private transaction? The way I understand federal law, neither of these is legal.

Of course, that armed populace would seriously shorten my reign as dictator

I wouldn't be so sure. A really good dictator would have the (armed) populace protecting him voluntarily.

[iamlazer]

Who am I to decide?
I didn't, the state already has.

The state says that one can make a private transaction to another PA resident as long as you have no suspicion or knowledge that they are a prohibited person.

By asking for a PA dl (or other state issued ID) and a LTCF, this fulfills both requirements.

Also, selling to my neighbor does the same, I know the person for many years, they live down the street, so no check of any sort is needed.

So, there is no reason for any additional check.

As for your hypocrite statement, I said that these could be used to fulfill the state requirements, I didn't say it was written in stone that one ask for ID and a LTCF.

Seems you have anger issues, IMO you would be one of those people not able to pass a check in NY due to your demeanor.
See how dangerous your argument is to your own ability to buy a firearm in the future?
All it would take is a mental health specialist to read your posts and deem you unstable.

See?

So if the state suddenly decided it was okay for semi autos to be banned, would you be okay with that?

It was the states decision after all.

Want to try that again? Perhaps in a way that actually makes sense?

This literally makes no sense and is literally not an argument.

By your logic, anyone can murder someone, therefore we should ban all weapons because we could maybe possibly be a victim in the future. ...what?

That's a lot of snark from someone that failed to answer some pretty simple questions and failed to properly convey a single argument for one's position.

Under the current system literally anybody could obtain a long gun through a private sale.

Say the private sales person was you. Would you have an issue with a criminal (unknown to you) acquiring your firearm?

...So am I aN (not a) "ignorant neanderthal" or am I a 'moron?'

If you're going to call people ignorant, maybe you should proofread your post/learn basic grammar first? And actually having an argument would probably help, too...

Oh look; the common "Your argument made no sense" retort was quickly followed up by nitpicking at a easy grammatical error.

BTW, its improper grammar to show a grammatical error by capitalizing the missing letter or word. The letter or word should be italicized to show emphasis.

But you being King Grammar would know this.

[ragequit]

Under the current system literally anybody could obtain a long gun through a private sale.

Criminals have and will still purchase guns illegally, says Captain Facepalm.

Say the private sales person was you. Would you have an issue with a criminal (unknown to you) acquiring your firearm?

Another wonderfully moot point (no, it's not even a point). Would you have an issue with a law-abiding citizen acquiring your firearm?

Oh look; the common "Your argument made no sense" retort was quickly followed up by nitpicking at a easy grammatical error.

This, coming from the one that STILL never answered my simple questions, and STILL never even provided an argument, at all.

If it was such an easy error, why did you do it... and repeatedly make others?

BTW, its improper grammar to show a grammatical error by capitalizing the missing letter or word. The letter or word should be italicized to show emphasis.

BTW, if you're going to whine about grammar while trying to inform one about grammar, you should maybe comprehend the difference between "its" and "it's."

Oops. I used bold, instead of italics!

But you being King Grammar would know this.

I know that you've evaded the living hell out of my previous simple questions.

Do you think that one should have the burden to prove innocence before exercising a RIGHT (not a privilege)? You haven't answered. Perhaps it's (not its) because you realize that your stance means that there is no right to bear arms - only a privilege to do so.

[Kabloosh]

"Right now in Pennsylvania, criminals may lawfully purchase an assault rifle even though it is illegal for that same criminal to purchase a handgun," Santarsiero said Wednesday at a Capitol news conference.

That was poorly worded, and wrong. If you're prohibited, you're prohibited, the only real difference is that a Federal-only prohibition allows PA residents to possess black powder guns. But there's no prohibitor for handguns that allows the person to possess a long gun, other than youth.

Here's a question for the PAFOA community: Many of you admit that handguns are the firearm of choice for criminals. The FBI stats back this up. Your argument is "why should we have background checks on long guns when it's the handguns that are the problem in criminal hands?"

OK, so some states are not like PA, they allow private sales of handguns, too. So, if handguns in criminal hands are the problem, would you be in favor of those states subjecting private sales of handguns to a background check?

The more I think about it the more I kind of do favor background checks for 1 simple reason.

In theory if there were no background checks criminals would be less cumbersome to just enter a legitimate gun store and buy weapons off the shelf. Why buy a stolen gun that is likely marked up several times more than its actual worth since it is likely a hot item and not as readily available as just going to Cabellas and picking up one of the hundreds of guns there?

The background checks are a hinderance and even a avenue of deterrence. Sure they don't stop all guns but criminals have to take the risk of trying to work through the system or steal one from someone who has one which could come at a high risk to themself if the owner is home...

The only negative effects is the lack of trust we can put in the establishment to not abuse this level of authority to try and push for more legislation yada yada. There is also the cost and manpower required to maintain such a system. It is reasonable to see how others who think differently find that anything government related is simply one step closer for them to turn us into mindless drones that only exist to serve our rich corporate overlords.