What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?

[NYFelon]

So what of a person who robs a bank with nothing other than a note? Bank personnel are trained to offer no resistance at all to a robber, regardless of whether he has a weapon at all. They are to just hand over the money and let the police handle the criminal investigation, and the FDIC is responsible for the financial aspects. Should such a person be forever barred from owning pen and paper for the rest of his life? Or is it not the pen and paper's fault they were used to hold up a bank? The argument falls apart when applied to any other object on this planet. So, in essence, you are in fact subscribing to the idea that the gun is the object of evil, and the robber is merely the channel through which the evil of the firearm manifests itself.

One CANNOT forfeit a right. The robber no more forfeited his right to a firearm than a person convicted of slander or libel forfeits his right to speech. The right may well have been INFRINGED UPON and restricted by a law of man, but it has not been forfeit. Rights by their nature CANNOT be forfeit.

I'm assuming armed robbery holds a higher punishment so yeah it might take the person LONGER to regain his rights if ever. But certainly right out of prison he should not legally be allowed to own a firearm. Maybe he robbed the bank when he was 22 years of age, he serves 10 years in prison or whatever and gets out. Maybe leads a law abiding life for the next 5-10 years has proven himself to be an upstanding citizen again. Depending on the state he lives in he can apply for his right to own a gun and vote again. Yes, I'm all for that.

You didn't answer the question.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Disclaimer my post didn't copy and paste correctly into the thread, I apoligize for the typos etc.

You didn't answer the question.

I felt that I did but go ahead and post that question again since after leaving this thread for 24 hours I've got a handful of other questions thrown at me here and after re reading yours and my posts I can't find the question that you are referring to.

Prison will never work...most guys who get out can't find a job...so they have to go back to crime to be able to eat. So I say just kill them when they commit a crime or make it where an employer can no longer ask the question are they a felon.

Of course a felon won't be able to get hired at a high paying job, there are resources out there, for example, Goodwill is a thrift store chain that hires felons, the thing is its not that they can't get the job, its that they cant hold the job.They get fired for things as simple as not being able to control their temper or control their language, or even use intelligible language to speak with customers. Probably because that guy has a 3rd grade education. Why did he not even complete high school, probably a whole slew of social issues, regardless this individual is unemployable because he literally cannot do basic simple things an employer would expect of a high school graduate.

Halfway houses and parole officers can provide avenues of approach for the felon to try and actually become contributing citizens again.

Sure there are different cases because not all criminals are the same... A computer hacker who did 5 years time for computer fraud might have a different set of problems then the elementry school dropout/gang member. Both men should have a way in which to regain their rights they lost when they were found guilty by a court.

Shift the war on drugs to a war on gang activity and illegal arms trafficing...

It's really just that simple, actually enforce some of the laws already onthe books.

I would agree, why would the NRA not want a director of the ATF? I don'tknow why we as gun owners want it to be so hard for the good guys to stop gunrunners. Then again the ATF has proven themselves garbage on different occasions, Fast and Furious comes to mind, but then again the person responsible for that never was found guilty so I would say the hearing about that were not conducted right.

"Background Checks" accomplish NO use fulpurpose as far as 'crime reduction', and there is ample data to prove that.

Like "Background Checks", Gun Registration has clearly been shownNOT to reduce crime, but have two effects of importance:

Gun Registration Confiscation

I'm talking about crime prevention. Yes the bad guy can contact his nearest illegal gun runner or go out of his way to steal a firearm. Either method will make it easier to bust him and keep him out of our soceity. But now he won't be getting his guns from US. When I say "us" I mean law abiding gun owners.

In no way am I saying gun registration or confiscation is a good idea.

Since Genocide currently continues to lead to around five thousand innocent civilians being murdered every day,

Genocide is a global problem...So is terrorism and human rights issues. Your point is that showing a drivers license and or LTCH that will lead to genocide in America?

If we could TRUST the government to honestly do a legitimate 'back ground check', it would still not reduce crime, even if we could trust them to NOT retain the 'registration' information as they currently do in clear violation of the law.

What consists of a legitimate back ground check? Checking to see if you have warrants out for your arrest isn't legit? I agree that errors are made, some folks get denied for no reason other then his/her name matches somebody that is similar to them, even then if it is an error after a few days the dealer is required to proceed with the transaction anyway.

Sadly, school shootings happen (enabled by government-created'gun-free-zones), and lovely innocent children die. The psychopaths who pull the trigger are the most guilty party, of course, but those of us who standby and allow the conditions to be created for such senseless murders are to blame as accomplices.

No - I don't mean those who own 'assault weapons', or belong to the NRA, or even those who watch stupid and violent video games - I mean the bureaucrats who create 'gun free zones' (yet send their kids to private schools with high-tech security and armed guards), AND I mean the apathetic"sportsmen" who spend $400 on a Leupold scope but won't donate $50 to the NRA, or who spend hours on the deerstand or Brownell's website, but won't write their legislators or show up at a public hearing, AND I mean those who are willing to accept a "Background Check", knowing full-wellthat it will save NO lives, provide political 'cover' for politicians lacking in integrity, and set the stage for genocide...

I own scary looking semi auto rifles and handguns, I'm a member of the NRA, I've sent letters to my representatives. I watch stupid violent movies and I agree Gun Free Zones are a terrible idea, I'm all for the LTCH holder to be armed wherever he or she goes, which includes travel thru other states who don't honor Indiana's license. But because I think we as gun owners should police ourselves better by merely visually trying to identify a person as an Indiana resident that makes me a genocide advocate?

Of course thinking like that makes one an 'anti-government wacko', but it would have been nice if some of the German citizens of the 1930's had felt that way, wouldn't it...???

Which is why I thank God that I'm an American. We have a system of checks and balances within our own government. We have representatives that are supposed to vote based on their constituents beliefs. If they don't WE vote them out of office. If the law seems unjust or wrong in some way people have the right to challenge it, lawsuits make it to the supreme court all the time that do this. We can help introduce bills into the houses to be voted on to be made into law. Look at all the people that WANTED concealed carry to be legal and all the states that have done just that! Our government can work if we as citizens keep it in check. Then theres always that LAST resort, firearms. We as the people own them and as a very last resort can use them to overthrow a tyrannical government. I am so thankful for our right to own firearms.

I think we all get that that's what you're saying. My question, and possibly that of others as well, is "Why?" The gun does not make him recidivate. It MAY allow him to defend himself fromhis former associates, however, because despite laws to the contrary, *they* will be armed.

I agree *they* will be armed, but as responsible gun owners we should tryand make it difficult for *them* to be armed, in fact we should aid the ATF incracking down on corrupt FFLs and other ways in which criminals may obtainfirearms.

This is a strawman argument. You've set up the scenario so you can knockdown the "obvious" answer

Its incredibly easy it is for anyone to obtain firearms, good, bad, somewhere in-between (insane). I merely suggest that we as gunowners police ourselves and don't sell a gun to the bad guys. An overwhelmingly easy way to do this is to just look at a drivers license and/or LTCH to sell a privately possessed firearm to another firearm enthusiast yet no paperwork or anything else needs to be conducted. Both parties have their firearm and/or have their money. Everybody is happy except the man who wants to get a gun to commit bad things. THAT guy will have to look elsewhere because us as responsible gunowners should say NO we don't want you to be able to get a gun this easy. You'll have to either talk to your black market associates or steal one, because you damn sure won't be buying one from US the good guys.

So... let's again address two items mentioned upthread: Cars and hammers, both of which have been used to kill many people, though admittedly, those killed by use of a car are not all intentional. (neither are guns.) With that premise in mind, if my neighbor wants to buy my hammer, should I have to take it down to a federally- (or even state-)licensed hardware store so that the "dealer" can run a background check on him and charge us a fee to allow me to sell him the hammer? If I have a car to sell, should I not be able to run an ad in my local paper or put it on Craig's List?

What "universal background checks" is all about is telling me I can't dispose of my own property to whomever I wish, however I wish. As is oft-repeated, it's not about guns. It's about control.

Blessings,

Bill

No your hammer is not capable of sending a projectile downrange, both cars and guns are dangerous but one is actually built to be a weapon as opposed to a device to pound nails into wood. Or (chainsaw) cut down trees, or (car) transport people etc. All ofthese things are tools, and all are dangerous if misused, only one of these is purpose built as a weapon.

Cars are not used as the primary weapon of criminals as often as firearms are. A car is certainly capable of causing death, which is why we have laws that govern the use of automobiles. The same thing with firearms, you don't discharge your firearm in a city outside of a range. You might discharge it in self defense, which is why we have laws governing self defense. Your car for sale might be a 2000 lbs projectile, but in order for the seller to even legally use it for its purpose, which is usually to transport people or goods along the street, he has to register it and put it in his name, I by no means am for registering firearms. The amount of times bad guys use guns to kill proves how much more effective those devices are compared to automobiles, EVEN tho both are up to the task at taking a human life.

I'm merely suggesting that we don't dispose of our property (firearms) to whomever we wish (criminals).

 

[silverspoon]

The whole premise to your argument is the second someone makes a mistake they lose they right to self defense for LIFE.

That's just fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Once that person has paid their debt to society, done their time and no longer on parole or probation their right to self defense should be reinstated automatically with no questions asked. End of story.

When I sell a firearm now I always ask to see a drivers license and a LTCH. That's because the law says they have to be a resident of this state and they have to be a proper person. I have no inclination to break any laws, especially related to firearms. Still doesn't make it right.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Disclaimer my post didn't copy and paste correctly into the thread, I apoligize for the typos etc.


I felt that I did but go ahead and post that question again since after leaving this thread for 24 hours I've got a handful of other questions thrown at me here and after re reading yours and my posts I can't find the question that you are referring to.

Originally Posted by NYFelon
So what of a person who robs a bank with nothing other than a note? Bank personnel are trained to offer no resistance at all to a robber, regardless of whether he has a weapon at all. They are to just hand over the money and let the police handle the criminal investigation, and the FDIC is responsible for the financial aspects. Should such a person be forever barred from owning pen and paper for the rest of his life? Or is it not the pen and paper's fault they were used to hold up a bank? The argument falls apart when applied to any other object on this planet. So, in essence, you are in fact subscribing to the idea that the gun is the object of evil, and the robber is merely the channel through which the evil of the firearm manifests itself.

 

[KoopaKGB]

The whole premise to your argument is the second someone makes a mistake they lose they right to self defense for LIFE.

That's just fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Once that person has paid their debt to society, done their time and no longer on parole or probation their right to self defense should be reinstated automatically with no questions asked. End of story.

When I sell a firearm now I always ask to see a drivers license and a LTCH. That's because the law says they have to be a resident of this state and they have to be a proper person. I have no inclination to break any laws, especially related to firearms. Still doesn't make it right.

Thats a big negative silverspoon. I know this thread is so long most folks won't want to read it all, but I agreed with Bill of Rights and NY felon that a released felon who has served their time should eventually have his right to own a firearm and vote restored. Hell if you even read the post right before yours I said "Both men should have a way in which to regain their rights they lost when they were found guilty by a court."

I am not saying a gun makes anyone evil, that would be like saying spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat. What I am saying is that the bank robber who used a firearm to commit his robbery should not have the right to own a firearm after he does his time, without some sort of formal system in place for him to go about regaining his right that he forfeited when he was found guilty of armed robbery.

Not in all places Trooper.

"In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing "good cause." There is no waiting period. In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they’ve left prison. In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years."

Seven of the Most Striking Ways States Have Loosened Gun Laws - ProPublica

Originally Posted by NYFelon
So what of a person who robs a bank with nothing other than a note? Bank personnel are trained to offer no resistance at all to a robber, regardless of whether he has a weapon at all. They are to just hand over the money and let the police handle the criminal investigation, and the FDIC is responsible for the financial aspects. Should such a person be forever barred from owning pen and paper for the rest of his life? Or is it not the pen and paper's fault they were used to hold up a bank? The argument falls apart when applied to any other object on this planet. So, in essence, you are in fact subscribing to the idea that the gun is the object of evil, and the robber is merely the channel through which the evil of the firearm manifests itself.

No of course not, however even tho this person didn't use a firearm in their crime, they are still a felon. Upon instant release of prison they shouldn't be able to go pick up a gun either. I think Indiana should have some sort of system in place similar to Ohio's where a convicted felon can regain his right to own a firearm.

 

[davidc912]

The Daily Show and the National Gun Victims Action Council are pretty lousy groups to be citing when discussing firearm regulations.

Law abiding firearm owners need LESS policing... not more, and "common sense" lawmaking doesn't involve addressing the anti-gun crowds same false, tired cries of "gun show loopholes, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines".

There is no compromise with a group that ultimately wants total disarmament and resorts to fear mongering and outright fraudulent misrepresentation to achieve that goal. No concession appeases them. In fact, it only emboldens them and validates their ridiculous assertions to their low-information base.

This whole Sandy Hook fiasco is nothing more than an exercise in heavy handed politics. They push to ban an entire family of weapons and magazines, hoping to at least kill the private ownership of all magazines over 10 rounds and to initiate a de facto gun registration.

Handguns were their first targets and will/would be their next. Then, you're 1 DC sniper away from high power bolt gun bans and a shotgun and a crowd away from non-2 shot 12 gauge bans. And they're not done with "assault weapons", they've already convinced a large amount of ignorant people that they are basically trigger operated murder cannons that fire baby seeking projectiles made from a super toxic compound whose very smell could kill state park full of endangered species.

Not one more step. As you are trying to negotiate with these frauds, they are pushing you 1 step at a time in a drunkard's walk that ends in total disarmament.

The BATFE and DHS need to be shut down, with any administrative firearm tasks handed over to the FBI and appropriate state agencies. Both organizations are dreadfully expensive and moreover incompetent. Both seem to view law-abiding citizens as potential threats while being completely oblivious to true dangers.

Oh, and quit watching Comedy Central. There is not a source of information lower and more useless than a party line pundit who does nothing but engage in sarcastic political rhetoric and then when cornered says "I'm just a comedian... I mayka dah hahas..."

 

[draftyranger]

There will allways be bad people. Criminals will always be able to get firearms. There will always be violence in the world. Regardless of the tools they use, bad guys will kill others. Terrible things are always going to happen. No laws, no rules, nothing will ever change that. I wake up every morning and pray for the safety of my family, friends and myself. I carry every day and always have a firearm ready to go when I am at home. The majority of my family does the same. The only way to stop these armed violent criminals is to face them head on. If the criminals will allways have firearms, the good guys need to have these firearms as well. No background checks for private sales, or FFL sales, will ever change that. This is just my view on the whole thing, I would preffer not to be burned at the stake for my views.

 

[KoopaKGB]

The Daily Show and the National Gun Victims Action Council are pretty lousy groups to be citing when discussing firearm regulations.

I still learned WHY there was no ATF director. Or the fact that there are only 2500 agents in the whole branch. Argue about the points addressed, they didn't fabricate the facts. And theres not a whole lot of data that gets collected about the use of firearms. Other than the NRA and other pro groups who collect data about guns used defensively. And then those facts are never presented by the media...

There will allways be bad people. Criminals will always be able to get firearms.

Yeah but why not attempt to cut off the easiest pipeline without infringing on you or I's ability to do business and keep on enjoying firearms responsibly. Why not press for gunowners to be more responsible as to who we sell our firearms to? Why don't we as a community have a desire to try and prevent crime? In this particular case the crime is a prohibited person buying a firearm.

 

[johnny45]

What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?

Make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain the, of course...

Just as Barry... and even some of those who claim to support the Second Amendment.

 

[Signal23]

Keep the criminals in Jail, make the payment for crime severe and people with think twice about70% of the stuff we deal with

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thats a big negative silverspoon. I know this thread is so long most folks won't want to read it all, but I agreed with Bill of Rights and NY felon that a released felon who has served their time should eventually have his right to own a firearm and vote restored. Hell if you even read the post right before yours I said "Both men should have a way in which to regain their rights they lost when they were found guilty by a court."

You did agree with that, yes, but in a fundamentally different way: You said "eventually". Per Indiana code:

IC 35-47-2-20
Removal of disability under this chapter
Sec. 20. (a) A full pardon from the governor of Indiana for:
(1) a felony other than a felony that is included in IC 35-42; or
(2) a violation of this chapter;
removes any disability under this chapter imposed because of that offense, if fifteen (15) years have elapsed between the time of the offense and the application for a license under this chapter.
(b) A conditional pardon described in IC 11-9-2-4 for:
(1) a felony; or
(2) a violation of this chapter;
removes a disability under this chapter if the superintendent determines after an investigation that circumstances have changed since the pardoned conviction was entered to such an extent that the pardoned person is likely to handle handguns in compliance with the law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.6; P.L.148-1987, SEC.6.

FIFTEEN YEARS must pass before the person may even petition for relief, and that's even with a full pardon! In essence, despite the law providing for a sentence of, say, 6-10 years, of which the person will serve at most five, his actual sentence is between 18 and 20 years for whatever crime he committed, or roughly five times the advisory sentence, once reduced by the whole "good behavior" bit. That's an awfully long time to go without legal access to an effective means of defense against one's former associates, with whom the person does not wish to have further truck.

No of course not, however even tho this person didn't use a firearm in their crime, they are still a felon. Upon instant release of prison they shouldn't be able to go pick up a gun either. I think Indiana should have some sort of system in place similar to Ohio's where a convicted felon can regain his right to own a firearm.

As above, Indiana does have such a system in place. It was last revised over two and a half decades ago. I'm still waiting to hear why the guy, once released (and I'll go with "fully released", as in no longer on probation, not in a halfway house, etc., to allow him time to re-acclimate himself to free society) should not be able to walk down to his LGS, put his money on the counter, and walk out with a pistol or long gun? Has he or has he not "paid his debt"? It seems to me, and admittedly, I'm not a lawyer, that his "debt" is only considered paid after his sentence, plus probation, plus the additional 15 years, plus whatever time after that it takes to obtain the pardon, if he can even do so. His release from incarceration happens automatically after X period of time passes. Why does the return of his full ability to exercise his rights lawfully not also happen automatically?

I still learned WHY there was no ATF director. Or the fact that there are only 2500 agents in the whole branch. Argue about the points addressed, they didn't fabricate the facts. And theres not a whole lot of data that gets collected about the use of firearms. Other than the NRA and other pro groups who collect data about guns used defensively. And then those facts are never presented by the media...



Yeah but why not attempt to cut off the easiest pipeline without infringing on you or I's ability to do business and keep on enjoying firearms responsibly. Why not press for gunowners to be more responsible as to who we sell our firearms to? Why don't we as a community have a desire to try and prevent crime? In this particular case the crime is a prohibited person buying a firearm.

What pipeline? Gun shows? If that's what you mean, we've already addressed that less than 2% of crime guns come from them. "Gun traffickers" are already breaking laws. Catch and punish them, but using myself for the example, with one exception, I've not left the state of Indiana but once in the last year and not done so other than while on the clock (and thus, in an ambulance) in about five years. I'm not trafficking in guns, but yet I'm still hindered by the same restrictions that don't stop such trafficking but delay me at my LGS.
I hold a C&R FFL, for crying out loud. I've been background checked at the federal (FFL), state (LTCH), and local (CLEO for FFL and for suppressor) levels, not to mention repeated checks whenever I buy a new firearm even now. My worst offenses consist of traffic infractions, but I've still got to prove my innocence when I buy a gun, rather than someone else proving my guilt to deny me.

The killer in CT went to a LGS and was denied a purchase, whether because of CT State law or by NICS, I don't know, but funny thing.... it didn't stop him from starting this whole process, creating the crisis that "more gov't" wasn't going to let go to waste. It just meant that his first victim was his mother, who might have lived had he not had to steal her weapons to attempt to accomplish his goal. The principal (and whoever else) were forced by "more gov't" to attempt to stop him empty-handed or with makeshift weapons at best. They also might have lived, had they been able to defend effectively.

If "more government" is the answer, the question must be pretty da*n idiotic.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[1donos]

Put the criminals in prison. There's almost no firearms there at all.

+1

 

[KLB]

If "more government" is the answer, the question must be pretty da*n idiotic.

Blessings,
Bill

Well said as usual Bill.

 

[Micah]

If you are cought with a stolen weapon.... You get your trigger finger cut off on first offence. 2nd offence you loose your hand.

I bet within 1 month nearly all gun related crime will end

 

[japartridge]

If you are cought with a stolen weapon.... You get your trigger finger cut off on first offence. 2nd offence you loose your hand.

I bet within 1 month nearly all gun related crime will end

This would be fine, other than the fact that the US justice system has a habit of screwing the pooch and falsely accusing people!

Also spell check is your friend!

 

[Micah]

This would be fine, other than the fact that the US justice system has a habit of screwing the pooch and falsely accusing people!

Also spell check is your friend!

You are right lol... I Spoke before thinking.

iPhone does not have spell check. Instead it has autocorrect and at times it is worse then a person that can't spell. I will try harder to reread before submitting.

 

[japartridge]

You are right lol... I Spoke before thinking.

iPhone does not have spell check. Instead it has autocorrect and at times it is worse then a person that can't spell. I will try harder to reread before submitting.

ahh, didn't think about phone auto-correct... you may want to put a sig line in that says "Leave me alone it's my damn iPhone auto correct!!!"

 

[iChokePeople]

If you are cought with a stolen weapon.... You get your trigger finger cut off on first offence. 2nd offence you loose your hand.

__________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,today,and forever.

Am I the only one who thinks this ^^ is really funny? Probably so, back on your heads.

 

[CarmelHP]

I voted to do nothing. Criminals, by definition, are people that will not obey the law, so what will a law, that would inconvenience the law abiding, do to stop a criminal?

Precisely. Why would criminals stop buying $300 or $400 stolen guns for $50 on the street, or stop using straw men, both of which they do now, and both of which are illegal, and which they would continue doing in the face of one more new law. This isn't rocket science, criminals are criminals because they disregard the law.

 

[CarmelHP]

Since most of the guns criminals have were stolen, if you don't securely lock up ALL of your guns that aren't under your DIRECT control, YOU are part of the problem.

SOMEBODY made their guns easy to steal, or they wouldn't have them.

And rape victims should have locked up their vaginas.