Bucks county Democratic wants to close the PA state loophole

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/...s&id=202359931


Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

[iamlazer]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the cost should not fall on the shoulders of the customer.

[mikelets456]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the government should pay for them since they are the ones that pushed for them in the first place.

Ummm, handguns are used in 99.99% of crimes and are illegal to sell FTF In PA. So, what's the excuse for the long guns that are rarely used in crimes? How about NJ where FTF sales are illegal...Camden, AC, newark, etc.Man oh man, I moved out of NJ because of this backwards thinking only to find it infiltrating PA.

[nightglider]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the cost should not fall on the shoulders of the customer.

Why should someone who cannot be trusted with a firearm be trusted in public?

[streaker69]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the cost should not fall on the shoulders of the customer.

So how is this law going to effect the criminals that already don't follow the law and buy guns without a background check? You do realize that most guns that are being used by criminals are stolen, and then resold. Do you think the gangbangers that are selling weapons on the street are going to go through a background check? The law will not deter a single crime.

[Phillygunguy]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the cost should not fall on the shoulders of the customer.

You and Santarseiro need to put down the pipe cause what ever the Hell you guys are smoking is making you two dumb and dumber

[GunLawyer001]

"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?

[iamlazer]

Ummm, handguns are used in 99.99% of crimes and are illegal to sell FTF In PA. So, what's the excuse for the long guns that are rarely used in crimes? How about NJ where FTF sales are illegal...Camden, AC, newark, etc.Man oh man, I moved out of NJ because of this backwards thinking only to find it infiltrating PA.

Its backwards thinking to ask a simple criminal check be done for the transfer of all firearms?

Seems like a lot a common sense to me. Sure doesn't impede my freedom. Nor does it paint a target on my back.

Why should someone who cannot be trusted with a firearm be trusted in public?

I didn't say they should be. But whether or not the animals need locked up or eradicated is a separate debate entirely.

So how is this law going to effect the criminals that already don't follow the law and buy guns without a background check? You do realize that most guns that are being used by criminals are stolen, and then resold. Do you think the gangbangers that are selling weapons on the street are going to go through a background check? The law will not deter a single crime.

Proof of the bold?

While the argument that the law won't stop ALL illegal transfers is a strawman argument at best (like saying the DUI law won't stop ALL drunk drivers, so we should abolish the law am I right?) the use of background checks have denied potential threats a purchase in the past.

Didn't have to go far through the history of this forum to find one example.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/209...se-denied.html

[nightglider]

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?

This is what I was alluding to, earlier. I believe that there should be no background checks at all. The problem is not with the legislative branch but with the executive. Laws must be enforced to keep those who would harm others from doing so.

If you argue that someone who is not in jail should not be allowed to own a firearm, you are implicitly blaming the firearm for crimes (potentially) committed by the perpetrator.

[nightglider]

I didn't say they should be. But whether or not the animals need locked up or eradicated is a separate debate entirely.

No, it isn't. Crime and punishment go hand-in-hand. If you committed an illegal act, you should be punished accordingly. Once you've served your time, been rehabilitated, and are no longer a danger to the general population, you should be released and afforded the same rights as everyone else.