ATF "gun verification"

[GunRelated]

Seems to me the were investigating them for possibly, and I mean possibly, breaking the law.

Now you see why the law is the way it is.

 

[Mr Smooth]

Now you see why the law is the way it is.

Yeah buy multiple guns or alot of guns in a short period of time and you might get investigated

 

[GunRelated]

Yeah buy multiple guns or alot of guns in a short period of time and you might get investigated

You make me a sad panda. Your ancestors would disown you.

 

[GunRelated]

Saddd Panda

 

[Mr Smooth]

You make me a sad panda. Your ancestors would disown you.

No they set it up that laws could be created, amended, voided based on the rule of the people. It is how it works.

 

[thperez1972]

Talking to someone and investigating them for breaking no laws is not the same thing.

Thank you. That's the point I've been making all along.

 

[GunRelated]

Thank you. That's the point I've been making all along.

Lol

Y'all been saying they were investigating the guy because he bought multiple firearms.

 

[GunRelated]

No they set it up that laws could be created, amended, voided based on the rule of the people. It is how it works.

You mean they set up the constitution so that I could be eroded away over time by way of fear of the boogie man?

Another secret. The boogie man is not who they tell you he is.

 

[GunRelated]

You mean they set up the constitution so that I could be eroded away over time by way of fear of the boogie man?

Another secret. The boogie man is not who they tell you he is.

If I weren't at work, I'd cook up a good Scooby Doo meme right now where the government lifts the mask of the bad guy, only to find the government underneath it.

 

[Mr Smooth]

You mean they set up the constitution so that I could be eroded away over time by way of fear of the boogie man?

Another secret. The boogie man is not who they tell you he is.

Sorry you feel that, I sort of believe they did a pretty good job with the Constitution. I haven't seen a better process yet.

 

[thperez1972]

Lol

Y'all been saying they were investigating the guy because he bought multiple firearms.

They are investigating the behavior. Let's say you see a young guy running down the street holding a purse. That behavior, in and of itself, is legal. It could easily have a legal justification. The kid's mom is in line at the store and realized she forgot her purse in the car so her son ran to the car and was bringing the purse back. That behavior could also be part of an illegal act. The kid could have just grabbed the purse of the counter and was running away with it. I don't believe it's unreasonable to say the police would be out of line if they looked into the situation, even though the behavior, running down the street with a purse, is not inherently illegal. I believe they would be justified for investigating a legal behavior. Part of that could easily involve talking to people, possibly even the kid that was running down the street. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the police to get a warrant before talking to the kid.

Gonna let you in on a little secret. All gun laws are infringements. There would be no straw purchases without gun laws. Gun laws are only meant to arm the government against the people while giving the illusion of providing safety against criminals.

We can have all the gun laws we want, and all the preventive measures we can think of, but when our own government is willing to arm said criminals, none of these laws mean anything.

I'd like to ask a question to see if there is any common ground with our opinions. There are laws in place that forbid convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Do you believe that law should not exist?

 

[Magdump]

Investigating every person who buys 2 guns in a day looking for straw purchases is like investigating everyone growing a back yard garden looking for pot…

 

[Mr Smooth]

They are investigating the behavior. Let's say you see a young guy running down the street holding a purse. That behavior, in and of itself, is legal. It could easily have a legal justification. The kid's mom is in line at the store and realized she forgot her purse in the car so her son ran to the car and was bringing the purse back. That behavior could also be part of an illegal act. The kid could have just grabbed the purse of the counter and was running away with it. I don't believe it's unreasonable to say the police would be out of line if they looked into the situation, even though the behavior, running down the street with a purse, is not inherently illegal. I believe they would be justified for investigating a legal behavior. Part of that could easily involve talking to people, possibly even the kid that was running down the street. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the police to get a warrant before talking to the kid.


I'd like to ask a question to see if there is any common ground with our opinions. There are laws in place that forbid convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Do you believe that law should not exist?

I believe convicted felons should not possess unless they have had a judgment that expunged their conviction. Do we want criminals to have guns?

 

[thperez1972]

Investigating every person who buys 2 guns in a day looking for straw purchases is like investigating everyone growing a back yard garden looking for pot…

It's a crime for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. I think the FBI's time would be better spent investigating background check denials to determine if they were errors or if they were criminal acts.

 

[GunRelated]

They are investigating the behavior. Let's say you see a young guy running down the street holding a purse. That behavior, in and of itself, is legal. It could easily have a legal justification. The kid's mom is in line at the store and realized she forgot her purse in the car so her son ran to the car and was bringing the purse back. That behavior could also be part of an illegal act. The kid could have just grabbed the purse of the counter and was running away with it. I don't believe it's unreasonable to say the police would be out of line if they looked into the situation, even though the behavior, running down the street with a purse, is not inherently illegal. I believe they would be justified for investigating a legal behavior. Part of that could easily involve talking to people, possibly even the kid that was running down the street. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the police to get a warrant before talking to the kid.


I'd like to ask a question to see if there is any common ground with our opinions. There are laws in place that forbid convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Do you believe that law should not exist?

Maybe if you have people screaming "hey that little f*cker stole my purse!", Maybe stop him. Otherwise, he's just a little flamer running with a purse, let him be.

In order to restrict the purchase of firearms by felons, that requires a background check which is an infringement on innocent people. Therefore, if we have to restrict felons in some way, the only way would be to charge them with possession when you catch them. Also, I do not agree that ALL felons should be restricted, only violent offenses warrant this.

 

[GunRelated]

Sorry you feel that, I sort of believe they did a pretty good job with the Constitution. I haven't seen a better process yet.

That was supposed to be sarcasm. The constitution was written pretty clearly, and it clearly states, "shall not be infringed".

 

[GunRelated]

Investigating every person who buys 2 guns in a day looking for straw purchases is like investigating everyone growing a back yard garden looking for pot…

And they gave all the good pots to all the ones that made it hard for everyone to own a pot in the first place. Wtf?

 

[Mr Smooth]

It's a crime for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. I think the FBI's time would be better spent investigating background check denials to determine if they were errors or if they were criminal

That was supposed to be sarcasm. The constitution was written pretty clearly, and it clearly states, "shall not be infringed".

So your take is that current gun laws may be illegal and eroding the Constitution? If so the process to remove them is clearing stated in the Constitution. If your good with the laws is there an issue?

I am a gun owner,and I think may be called a gun advocate (own between 50 and 100 firearms)
I also attempt to the best of my ability to abide by the law. Current laws may be unconstitutional in some areas and may be infringing in some areas but they still are the law until removed. I also held a FFL license and multiple purchases by LAW had to be reported. I believe that requirement was added in the 1968 gun control act. It is there to potentially identify straw purchases or other illegal gun dealing activities. Let's call it a "tip" provided by the FFL to the ATF that multiple purchases have occurred. It doesn't say they are illegal but here is the "tip". What the ATF does the determine why they come knocking on your door is something you should ask them if you get a knock. There may be a large list of reasons why you are getting a knock.
If I get a knock I will ask why and if they want to see my firearms I will gladly show them to them on my front porch. I don't feel it is an infringement they are just trying to do their job in minimizing straw purchases.

 

[thperez1972]

Maybe if you have people screaming "hey that little f*cker stole my purse!", Maybe stop him. Otherwise, he's just a little flamer running with a purse, let him be.

Interesting. So if there's a guy reaching into the window of a vehicle and going through the center console and there's no victim there to say "stop, thief," the passing police should assume the guy just lost his car keys and needed something out of his car immediately.

In order to restrict the purchase of firearms by felons, that requires a background check which is an infringement on innocent people. Therefore, if we have to restrict felons in some way, the only way would be to charge them with possession when you catch them. Also, I do not agree that ALL felons should be restricted, only violent offenses warrant this.

So do you believe a law should exist that forbids felons (or certain felon) from possessing firearms?

 

[Mr Smooth]

Maybe if you have people screaming "hey that little f*cker stole my purse!", Maybe stop him. Otherwise, he's just a little flamer running with a purse, let him be.

In order to restrict the purchase of firearms by felons, that requires a background check which is an infringement on innocent people. Therefore, if we have to restrict felons in some way, the only way would be to charge them with possession when you catch them. Also, I do not agree that ALL felons should be restricted, only violent offenses warrant this.

Like only take firearms from felons after they kill someone with it, maybe during a robbery, maybe during a drug dealer shoot out. This sounds like the smart way to go