California shooter: Out on bail 9 months awaiting trial on murder charges

[freyasman]

Each time it has failed we have fixed the loopholes. Cho would not be able to buy a gun in Virginia today.

Why should I respect you when you show so little respect for me?

You continue to argue that you have the right to sell a gun to anybody you feel like...and that right just doesn't exist.

Of course I do, who has the right to tell me I can't? And before you say "the government", show me where they were given the authority to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my property?

 

[middleview]

Of course I do, who has the right to tell me I can't? And before you say "the government", show me where they were given the authority to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my property?

You've already lost that argument. There are a lot of things that are not available for you to buy...much less sell. Try setting up a business to sell Oxycontin. How about a combination toy store gun store for kiddies.

 

[freyasman]

You've already lost that argument. There are a lot of things that are not available for you to buy...much less sell. Try setting up a business to sell Oxycontin. How about a combination toy store gun store for kiddies.

Dodging the question about where the authority comes from, aren't you?

 

[middleview]

Dodging the question about where the authority comes from, aren't you?

The very same place that allows the government to tell you that you cannot sell your prescription for Oxy. Or, if you like, the same law that says you cannot sell your gun to an ex-felon.

Background checks have already passed that test in the courts. Universal background checks in Colorado were challenged in federal court and the judge ruled them constitutional.

I'm not going to do your research for you to find out what the basis of the judges ruling was.
If you want to start a thread contesting what the courts have had to say on the matter, feel free.

 

[middleview]

I think that certain crimes should carry life sentence. I think that should expand to far more crimes than it currently does. Life sentences are constitutional.

So it would be constitutional to issue a life sentence for shop lifting? I'm always amazed at the number of constitutional lawyers on PJ.

 

[middleview]

Scared to find out? I bet you are.... you have been claiming for awhile now that those 7000 denials mean 7000 criminals were stopped from buying firearms. It's not going to help your argument much if 80% of them are erroneous denials where the person was completely legal to buy, and the system just failed...... again.

https://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967/
From the link;
"Yet, an initial denial does not mean that an individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2009, the latest year with data available. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation.

As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”

To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed.

Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases.

That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2 percent. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?"

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report/nics-operations-report-2012#Federal Denials
From the link;
Some records used to determine if an individual is eligible to possess or receive a firearm are not complete or up-to-date. As a result, eligible firearm transferees may be subject to lengthy delays or receive erroneous denials even after the completion of a successful appeal. Often, the record-completing information located by NICS Section employees cannot be used to update a criminal history record or an appellant’s fingerprints confirm they are not the subject of the prohibiting record initially matched to the received name and descriptors.

In cases where the matches are refuted by fingerprints, the subject’s deny decision may be overturned and the transaction proceeded. However, because the NICS is required to purge all identifying information regarding proceed transactions within 24 hours of notification to the FFL, in many instances the process must be repeated when the same transferee attempts subsequent firearm purchases and is again matched to the same prohibiting record.

From your source..

In 2012, approximately 1.01 percent of the firearm background checks processed by the NICS Section received a final transaction status of deny. 88,479 denial decisions were provided in 2012.

In 2012, the NICS Section received a total of 26,357 VAF applications and appeal requests. Of those, a total of 1,618 received were submitted by persons denied by POC state agencies. In 2012, the NICS Section’s research resulted in the overturn of 4,020 deny transactions.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report/nics-operations-report-2012#Federal Denials

So in 2012 (the last year I found info for on the archive)...there were about 84,000 denials that were not appealed.

 

[middleview]

"Waiting until someone actually kills a bunch of people before we do something about it is a little late for those who are dead, don't ya think?"

Again, where did I say I want to punish people for crimes that haven't been committed?
The answer is that I didn't. Preventing access to guns for people who have been proven criminals or are known to be under court ordered psychiatric care is not punishing them...but maybe the attempt to buy a gun by those folks should be.

 

[freyasman]

The very same place that allows the government to tell you that you cannot sell your prescription for Oxy. Or, if you like, the same law that says you cannot sell your gun to an ex-felon.

Background checks have already passed that test in the courts. Universal background checks in Colorado were challenged in federal court and the judge ruled them constitutional.

I'm not going to do your research for you to find out what the basis of the judges ruling was.
If you want to start a thread contesting what the courts have had to say on the matter, feel free.

You're confusing having the power to do something, with having the legitimate authority to.

 

[middleview]

You're confusing having the power to do something, with having the legitimate authority to.

You're ignoring that the court has ruled that the government does have the authority. Enacting legislation, as the government has done with regard to gun control showed they had the power. The court's rulings have shown they have the authority.

 

[freyasman]

From your source..

In 2012, approximately 1.01 percent of the firearm background checks processed by the NICS Section received a final transaction status of deny. 88,479 denial decisions were provided in 2012.

In 2012, the NICS Section received a total of 26,357 VAF applications and appeal requests. Of those, a total of 1,618 received were submitted by persons denied by POC state agencies. In 2012, the NICS Section’s research resulted in the overturn of 4,020 deny transactions.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report/nics-operations-report-2012#Federal Denials

So in 2012 (the last year I found info for on the archive)...there were about 84,000 denials that were not appealed.

And how many of those were denied in error? You claim that 7000 denials in Colorado means 7000 criminals didn't get guns, and therefore didn't commit any crimes; that is a completely unsubstantiated assertion, because you have no idea how many of, or even whether, those 7000 people were actually criminals at all. And you have no way of knowing they did not simply procure them by other means. Or someone just gave up on the idea of purchasing a gun altogether because these laws have made it an onerous and discouraging process..... a process that you would never tolerate on any other fundamental right, would you?

 

[freyasman]

Again, where did I say I want to punish people for crimes that haven't been committed?
The answer is that I didn't. Preventing access to guns for people who have been proven criminals or are known to be under court ordered psychiatric care is not punishing them...but maybe the attempt to buy a gun by those folks should be.

You wish for everybody else to jump through a million little hoops before we can exercise our rights, because someone, somewhere, someday, might do something bad.... bullshit you're not trying to punish people.

 

[freyasman]

You're ignoring that the court has ruled that the government does have the authority. Enacting legislation, as the government has done with regard to gun control showed they had the power. The court's rulings have shown they have the authority.

I believe it is an overstep on the part of the government with the aid of the legal system. Our entire legal system as it is practiced is basically just a racket.....If all this shit wasn't illegal, then a lot of people in the judicial system would have to find a real job.

 

[middleview]

And how many of those were denied in error? You claim that 7000 denials in Colorado means 7000 criminals didn't get guns, and therefore didn't commit any crimes; that is a completely unsubstantiated assertion, because you have no idea how many, or even whether, those 7000 people were actually criminals at all. And you have no way of knowing they did not simply procure them by other means. Or someone just gave up on the idea of purchasing a gun altogether because these laws have made it an onerous and discouraging process..... a process that you would never tolerate on any other fundamental right, would you?

The statistics only show that 84,000 denials were not contested by the person who was not allowed to buy a gun from an FFL. That was in one year.

Did those people who couldn't pass a background check then resort to buying a gun from an ad on the internet? Don't know...but that is why I favor universal background checks..to make it as inconvenient as possible for those who can't pass a BC.

There is no "basic right" to sell a gun to anyone you choose. You keep confusing the 2nd amendment with the right to sell. The person attempting to buy a gun may have been denied the second amendment right to own a gun, but it has already been taken to court and ruled that the government does have the authority to prevent that purchase.

Are you arguing that it is unconstitutional to prevent an ex-felon from buying a gun? If so this is the wrong place for you to attempt to make that argument. Call your lawyer and take it to court. You'll never persuade me that you know more about the law than the courts do.

 

[middleview]

You wish for everybody else to jump through a million little hoops before we can exercise our rights, because someone, somewhere, someday, might do something bad.... bullshit you're not trying to punish people.

A million little hoops? Really? To exercise your right to sell a gun?

If I've told you once I've told you a billion trillion times...don't exaggerate....

 

[freyasman]

A million little hoops? Really? To exercise your right to sell a gun?

If I've told you once I've told you a billion trillion times...don't exaggerate....

LOL, this from the guy who claims 7K denials means 7K criminals tried to buy a gun from a dealer.

 

[middleview]

LOL, this from the guy who claims 7K denials means 7K criminals tried to buy a gun from a dealer.

The Colorado background check denials are for a number of reasons...ex-felons, persons undergoing court ordered background checks, outstanding warrants, active restraining order. The denial stats I quoted were for both FFL and private sales....where a background check was performed.

I picked a month at random.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Firearm Statistics for March 2017_1.pdf

PS...you said a million hoops. Could you document perhaps a thousand or so of those?

 

[freyasman]

The Colorado background check denials are for a number of reasons...ex-felons, persons undergoing court ordered background checks, outstanding warrants, active restraining order. The denial stats I quoted were for both FFL and private sales....where a background check was performed.

I picked a month at random.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Firearm Statistics for March 2017_1.pdf

PS...you said a million hoops. Could you document perhaps a thousand or so of those?

I'll admit to hyperbole in my "million little hoops" comment; mea culpa.

Let me ask a different question; how do these laws impact your life? How many of these NICS checks have you had to submit to in the last year?

 

[middleview]

I'll admit to hyperbole in my "million little hoops" comment; mea culpa.

Let me ask a different question; how do these laws impact your life? How many of these NICS checks have you had to submit to in the last year?

One. I sold a .40 sw to a friend. Took about 5 minutes while we were shooting on the range...No big deal.

I should add...I bought the gun at that range about 3 months before I sold it...so twice since 2016.

 

[freyasman]

One. I sold a .40 sw to a friend. Took about 5 minutes while we were shooting on the range...No big deal.

How big a deal would it be if you had been denied? Say your wife filed a restraining order because y'all were getting a divorce? Or your identity had been stolen? Or you just happened to have the same name as a guy with a felony record? How much of an impact would that make?
Now say you transferred firearms as many times a year as you voted, or posted something here, or traveled? How big of a deal would that be to you?

 

[middleview]

How big a deal would it be if you had been denied? Say your wife filed a restraining order because y'all were getting a divorce? Or your identity had been stolen? Or you just happened to have the same name as a guy with a felony record? How much of an impact would that make?
Now say you transferred firearms as many times a year as you voted, or posted something here, or traveled? How big of a deal would that be to you?

1. If I were denied I would file for a review. Again...do you think I'm desperate to have a gun and can't wait for a few days? Clearly I would want to know. There is a process to get an ID number so it doesn't happen again.
2. A background check to vote? To what end? To find out if I had a restraining order?
There would have to be some value.
3. If I had a restraining order it makes perfect sense to be denied. You can always contest a restraining order and should if it is filed frivolously. I've been through that process when I first started dating my current wife. She had been threatened by her ex. You seem to think it is a trivial matter to file for one. It isn't. He actually vandalized my car and threatened to shoot me. He went to jail for violating the order and had his guns confiscated...and that was the right thing to do. F*ck him and his 2nd amendment rights to be a moron with a gun.