LGC blog post 12/16

Talk about anything you like but keep it civil. This is a public forum, the views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the LGC.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
SmokeFan
Moderator
Posts: 3945
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:54 am
Location: Wyoming (LGC Member)
Contact:

LGC blog post 12/16

#1 Post by SmokeFan » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:52 am

Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14029
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#2 Post by sikacz » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:23 am

Thank you, a very thoughful post, much to contemplate. Nice touch with the m39s! :beer2:
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
CowboyT
Loquacious
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: No longer in San Francisco, California
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#3 Post by CowboyT » Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:40 pm

Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/ (podcast)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!

User avatar
Inquisitor
Site Admin
Posts: 14555
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:19 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#4 Post by Inquisitor » Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:46 pm

CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
Yes, with the same disclaimers :)

Work with Smokefan.

As for "who is harmed" well, if implemented as badly as other states, the consumer is harmed. Unecessary costs/fees added to a private transaction. Not sure if the legal eagles will agree with me on the definition of "harm" but prohibitive fee structures would chill the sales, IMHO, and putting a potential competitor (say, a gun shop) in charge of that part of it, seems like they could manipulate things inappropriately (say, if its an item they see value and impede the transaction in their favor).

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14029
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#5 Post by sikacz » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:06 pm

Great idea CowboyT, look forward to reading it!
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
SmokeFan
Moderator
Posts: 3945
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:54 am
Location: Wyoming (LGC Member)
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#6 Post by SmokeFan » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:59 pm

CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
What Quiz said. If you want to work something up, send it to me. I'm the blog editor (editress? editrix?).
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18959
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#7 Post by CDFingers » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:25 pm

CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
I would totally welcome it under the above conditions.

One thing I'd like to clear up is whether NICS constitutes a "universal background check" as referenced in the post. What is the definition of the term? Under what conditions? And so on. I think it's a very rich topic with lots of historical threads.

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14029
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#8 Post by sikacz » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:58 pm

CDFingers wrote:
CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
I would totally welcome it under the above conditions.

One thing I'd like to clear up is whether NICS constitutes a "universal background check" as referenced in the post. What is the definition of the term? Under what conditions? And so on. I think it's a very rich topic with lots of historical threads.

CDFingers
I think part of the Facelessbook conversation needs a bit more help on the NICS point.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
nigel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 3:49 pm
Location: I post, therefore I am. In SoCal

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#9 Post by nigel » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:21 pm

CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
Certainly! But this is the interwebz, so we want gratuitous name calling, tangential arguments and spurious anecdotal examples. Otherwise it's no fun.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 10608
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#10 Post by lurker » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:46 pm

good post, well written, nicely illustrated. but it meanders a bit, and assumes we all know what is meant by "universal background checks". it wasn't until i read this thread that i understood that we're talking about background checks for private sales.



now, i have mixed feelings about private sale checks. over the years i've probably owned two dozen firearms, some of which i've lost interest in, and i want those to find good homes with responsible owners. i'm very much interested in not selling them to people who will abuse them in some way or other. so being able to check that the potential buyer can legally take ownership seems like a good idea at first glance.

but i see a couple of problems. first, i think such a provision is unenforceable. there are literally millions of firearms in private hands, and assuming full compliance, it will take decades, if not generations for them all to hit the marketplace. it imposes burdens in terms of infrastructure and constraints on the time and place when i can legally buy or sell legal items from friends or neighbors. in the case of criminals buying guns, it's just another law they will ignore.

my personal solution is to only buy from or sell to people i know from other contexts. the guy at the hardware store that i buy hammers and saws from, or the guy i know from college classes. people i have reason to believe are responsible, who already legally own guns.
:wacko:

User avatar
TheHunterOfSkulls
Chatty
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:41 pm
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#11 Post by TheHunterOfSkulls » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:50 pm

lurker wrote:now, i have mixed feelings about private sale checks. over the years i've probably owned two dozen firearms, some of which i've lost interest in, and i want those to find good homes with responsible owners. i'm very much interested in not selling them to people who will abuse them in some way or other. so being able to check that the potential buyer can legally take ownership seems like a good idea at first glance.
Opening NICS up to private sellers would help a great deal with this problem, which is what would be pushed for if the restrictionists were actually interested in public safety. Since they're not, they're pushing for whatever solution makes it more burdensome to be a firearms owner.
My official title is Doctor Mister Hunter Of Skullyness. Don't ask me, ask Fukshot.

The moral certainty of the crusader is as much a comfort to them as it is a burden to those in the path of their crusade.

User avatar
Inquisitor
Site Admin
Posts: 14555
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:19 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#12 Post by Inquisitor » Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:01 am

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:
lurker wrote:now, i have mixed feelings about private sale checks. over the years i've probably owned two dozen firearms, some of which i've lost interest in, and i want those to find good homes with responsible owners. i'm very much interested in not selling them to people who will abuse them in some way or other. so being able to check that the potential buyer can legally take ownership seems like a good idea at first glance.
Opening NICS up to private sellers would help a great deal with this problem, which is what would be pushed for if the restrictionists were actually interested in public safety. Since they're not, they're pushing for whatever solution makes it more burdensome to be a firearms owner.
this

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14029
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#13 Post by sikacz » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:11 am

Too bad this conversation can't be merged with the FB one! :beer2: I posted a link of this thread.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18959
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#14 Post by CDFingers » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:46 am

Inquisitor wrote:
TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:
lurker wrote:now, i have mixed feelings about private sale checks. over the years i've probably owned two dozen firearms, some of which i've lost interest in, and i want those to find good homes with responsible owners. i'm very much interested in not selling them to people who will abuse them in some way or other. so being able to check that the potential buyer can legally take ownership seems like a good idea at first glance.
Opening NICS up to private sellers would help a great deal with this problem, which is what would be pushed for if the restrictionists were actually interested in public safety. Since they're not, they're pushing for whatever solution makes it more burdensome to be a firearms owner.
this
I think this notion of opening up NICS to private sellers in order actually to improve safety is a winner.

While it is possible that n'er-do-wells might pursue an increase on burdens on the firearms owner, I'm more inclined to think that, in the minds of non gun owning politicians, firearms owners are good targets for revenue generation. Because of that, re: the NICS system being opened to private sellers, I would claim that opening up NICS actually would cost almost nothing, thus would be unlikely to burden firearms owners.

lurker wrote that the post meanders a bit. This is true. Had I taken more time with revisions, it would have been shorter, pithier. There are many ideas in there--perhaps too many for a blog post.

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14029
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#15 Post by sikacz » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:40 am

I like meandering my mind wanders! :beer2:
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
pdoggeth
Chatty
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:59 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#16 Post by pdoggeth » Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:49 am

Nice write up CD. I'm of the opinion that we should meet the opposition half way sometimes. Overall I don't feel this is a major hit on gun rights -- an inconvenience for private party sales sure, but that's about it. Living in CA I have to deal with this anyway, so if I can do it, then it shouldn't be a problem for most people to do it (easy for me to say, right? :P). I also feel this will have a negligible effect on crime and safety, but as previously stated I think we ought to reach out a bit to the other side and give them a bone every now and then, perhaps maybe get a concession in return? Of course, the counter argument is that you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

User avatar
CowboyT
Loquacious
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: No longer in San Francisco, California
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#17 Post by CowboyT » Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:42 pm

SmokeFan wrote:
CowboyT wrote:Would a counterpoint post on said blog be welcome at all?
What Quiz said. If you want to work something up, send it to me. I'm the blog editor (editress? editrix?).
OK, I'll get to work on it this weekend.
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/ (podcast)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18959
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: LGC blog post 12/16

#18 Post by CDFingers » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:43 am

Volokh addressed these issues on the 19th of December. That they are being widely discussed should be very exciting to the gun community--maybe scary, too.

Here is the last graph, then link:
Like most other federalism scholars, I highly doubt that Nebraska and Oklahoma will win their case. But if they do somehow prevail, the biggest losers will be advocates of constitutional limits on federal power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... -colorado/

The big issue is Federalism, promulgated by the Commerce Clause. Will that be the camel's nose, the Commerce Clause, that makes NICS the rule for all gun transactions in all states?

For discussion purposes.

CDFingers
ImageImage
We used to play for silver, now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood at the point of a knife.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests