Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

You’re confused and continually use the Brady Bill whose provisions expired to cloud the issue like Wayne likes to do.
The Brady Bill never applied to private sales and some provisions of the BRADY BILL NO longer exists, even for licensed gun dealers.


First, the Brady Bill ONLY APPLIED LICENSED DEALERS.
The federal ban on sale assault weapons by licensed gun dealers expired and no longer exists. The five day waiting period no longer exists. As a compromise, NICS was instituted for Licensed dealers. The original Brady Bill as written, no longer exists.

It NEVER applied to private sales. Private sales are the conduit for guns flooding into the hands of criminals and unauthorized people. Every gun ever manufactured and put on the market by licensed gun dealers, is now out of total control of being bought by ANYONE because there are no regulations on private sellers. They can unknowingly and legally sell, or gift or transfer firearms to ANYONE.

The private seller, unlike a licensed gun dealer, has no legal obligation in the transfer of a firearm to anyone else.

 

No, and they should not be.
But,
There are no federal regulations requiring a private seller to have a back ground check on any buyer of his firearm, he is free to then turn over it to any underaged, convicted felon or other unauthorized individual by remaining ignorant. .
Heck, there is no federal requirement to even ask the buyer if he
is prohibited. Every fire arm ever sold to a legal buyer by a licensed gun dealer , is now up for grabs to anyone. There are no regulations on any gun owner to insure the buyer is legal.

So they still find a way.

 

The Brady Bill only applied to licensed dealers. It’s a smoke screen. Every gun ever used in a crime passed through he hands of a legal buyer from a licensed gun dealer.

 

No they aren’t. That’s a false statement about BCs which are not require for private sales. The Brady Bill whose provisions have expired, only applied to licensed gun dealers, not to private sales. You’re the one who is confused.

 

No. Can you or not?

 

Are cement mixers full of AnFo as easy to get your hands on than a .22 rifle? And what would someone do with a gasoline truck?

 

I'm still confused how you can say "NO" to my question, just because there is an initial crime when lying on the Form 4473.

 

This is for private sales though, right?

 

And what law could prevent that?

 

So why does it matter that the Brady Act - as far as you're concerned - is expired?

 

Because the purchase part of a straw purchase isn't a legal purchase.

 

The Brady Act was never intended to cover private sales. The interim provisions expired; the permanent provisions are still in place.

But hey, you don't have to believe me.

"On November 30, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual. The waiting period applies only in states without an acceptable alternate system of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. The interim provisions of the Brady Law became effective on February 28, 1994, and ceased to apply on November 30, 1998. While the interim provisions of the Brady Law apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law apply to all firearms."

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law

Take up your argument with the ATF (and FBI, DOJ, Congress, etc.)

 

How does that mean that it's not a straw purchase? I didn't say straw LEGAL purchase.

 

And so if the Brady Bill has expired, why are licensed dealers still required to do background checks?

 

There's no such thing as a straw legal purchase.

Signing the Form 4473 with the false statement on the form is one felony. Completing the purchase with the intent of transferring the firearm to a prohibited person is another felony.

EDIT: It may be that we're talking past each other. Care to restate your premise or question?

 

Until these people are fully prosecuted, there's no rational argument whatsoever for more gun control laws.
You cannot soundly argue a need for more laws when the current laws aren't enforced.

 

If you don't know I do not have the right o buy a gun, then nothing happens to you.
it is still illegal for me to buy the gun, however.

 

We are not talking about 22 rifles, so your question has no relevance.
That said - cement mixers are common and AnFo is easy to get.

Drive it into a school or a mall with the vales open, and light the gas.

 

If someone has a previous felony conviction there is a way for them to own a gun again. But it is a long and involved process that costs thousands of dollars....and the process may not even work.

Essentially you have to hire a lawyer that can practice in the state that you were convicted in. A lawyer that specializes in expungements, sealing records, and then restoring Rights. Its 3 separate processes.

Expungements essentially turns your conviction into a record that says you went to court over {insert crime here} but no decision was made. Employers and the like can still see this.

Then you have to have your record sealed. Employers can no longer see your record. You essentially have a "clean record" as far as employers are concerned. However federal agencies can still see it.

Then you have to apply to have your Rights restored. In all States the only Rights that you need to apply to get back for is either voting Rights, or gun Rights, or both. God forbid you need this done in a State full of liberal judges that believe that the 2nd Amendment is a Societal Right and not an Individual Right. Getting your Rights restored will be next to impossible.

Each step requires a judges approval. If a judge should deny you on any of those steps you have to restart that step over. And there is nothing saying that they have to give approval. Depending on the area that you live in each step costs anywhere between $2400 to $5,000 if no extra work has to be done.

 

Please read my posts.

 

Are you saying anything different then I did ? Nope.

 

To keep up the facade that republicans care about arming prohibited people with firearms.

 

It’s a ridiculous comparison. It’s an offense subject to arrest to allow an unqualified person to take possession of either a gasoline truck or cement truck that’s used to commit a crime. . . The original possessor is liable.

While, a legal owner of any firearm is not required to insure the person he turns a firearm over to is not prohibited and assumes no liability if the firearm is then be used in a crime by that same person. .

 

It doesn’t matter to me but seems to be a talking point of the right that somehow, it helps keep firearms out the hands of unqualified persons. It only helps the manufacturer from being liable by putting a licensed gun dealer between them and a legal buyer. It does little to insure subsequent possessors are qualified persons. It puts no requirements on subsequent private transactions on both parties. From heavy equipment to alcohol to other controlled substances, , private transactions regulations to keep items out of the hands of unqualified are put on BOTH PARTIEs. But, not for firearms.

 

One of these days, you will think before posting.
Today is no that day.