statefan91 said:

---

....no....it was stolen. But you damn well better report that it was stolen when you check to ensure you still have possession of your firearm.

Are you saying that a child finding an unsecured gun and shooting someone is the same as someone breaking in and forcibly stealing your gun and committing a crime with it?

---

How many days before it needs to be reported though? That's what I'm asking. I travel a lot for work, I live in a rural area. A gun could be stolen (albeit not easily) from my house and used in a crime and I may not know about it for days.


And where did I make the comparison of a child finding an unsecured gun vs. someone stealing it? My guns are locked up, except for the one I'm currently carrying.


Also I should make it clear I was mostly responding to this statement you made:

Same with not knowing your gun is stolen. If you are signing up for the responsibility of owning a gun you should be able to keep track of its location. If you don't report it stolen and it's used in the commission of a crime you should be charged for your negligence.

People are already prosecuted all the time if a child is hurt or killed from an unsecured weapon. It looks like the adult/parent is charged in about 50% of cases. Mostly this is due to prosecutor discretion, although there are some states that put a very high bar on negligence, which will push this number down.

In general, I'm wary of retributive justice. Compare this to hot car deaths. Many people are incredibly negligent and reckless and deserve prosecution. But in some instances, honest mistakes were made, and the worst possible thing already happened to the parent. Their child died. Locking them up isn't going to do anything to make them feel worse, and may deprive another kid of their parent. If you go after both parents, you may be sending the sibling to foster care. I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't have the ability to prosecute these parents, but it is an area where prosecutor discretion, and mercy, are sometimes warranted

So far I've seen responses against people being responsible for keeping track of their gun, against being responsible for reporting it stolen, mostly against being responsible if someone dies because of it being left out and available to someone that isn't the owner.

Is there some point where a gun owner is held responsible? Or do you think there should be nothing done because none of this is a problem?

I feel like I see an article once a week where some poor child has killed themselves or a sibling / friend because of some dumbass parent that was legally allowed to buy a gun and took zero responsibility to ensure they were being safe with it.

Man go fire off a couple rounds to take the edge off. You always have a comeback to everything.

Like I said, gun holders are already held responsible when kids are shot finding an unsecured weapon in most states. I agree that the states that have this gap should address it. From what I can find, 75-80 kids get hurt or killed each year in this scenario. Definitely a tragedy, not an epidemic

Another week, another mass shooting, another round of do-nothing from those in power.

Rinse, repeat.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Another week, another mass shooting, another round of do-nothing from those in power.

Rinse, repeat.

---

What do you recommend?

JocoPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Another week, another mass shooting, another round of do-nothing from those in power.

Rinse, repeat.

---

What do you recommend?

---

I'm not entirely sure, but I also don't think tweeting out "thoughts and prayers" as an elected member of Congress suffices. There are a lot of things I think could be implemented without infringing on the 2A. I'm sure some would disagree, however. This is a crisis that should be addressed in some way. We shouldn't care more about guns in this country than our kids.

PackBacker07 said:

---

JocoPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Another week, another mass shooting, another round of do-nothing from those in power.

Rinse, repeat.

---

What do you recommend?

---

I'm not entirely sure, but I also don't think tweeting out "thoughts and prayers" as an elected member of Congress suffices. There are a lot of things I think could be implemented without infringing on the 2A. I'm sure some would disagree, however. This is a crisis that should be addressed in some way. We shouldn't care more about guns in this country than our kids.

---

What are some of the things you think could be implemented without infringing on the 2A? Honestly just curious.

Poor baby girl, terrible to see. Nothing we can do about it though, just the price of freedom. 'Merica.

Still nothing from the Senate on Universal Background checks or Red Flag laws...

Keep us posted with the good news

statefan91 said:

---

Still nothing from the Senate on Universal Background checks or Red Flag laws...

---

I hope they don't do anything with red flag laws. That would be yet another government cluster. Maybe they will do something with background checks but as always, the ones who want a gun and can't get it legally, will get it illegally.

statefan91 said:

---

Still nothing from the Senate on Universal Background checks or Red Flag laws...

---

What would you like to change with the current NICs background check?

This whole gun debate is a bunch of crap. We are born with the right to own guns. The founders made it clear that government does not have a right to interfere with that right.

If you really care about people, go into your local community and do something. Paint someone's house, find a family in need and provide them food. Provide a way to the store. Provide something.

When everyone does something on their own accord, then this country will start being better, not perfect. BTW, doing something is not campaigning for the next politician that promises to give a new program to a group of people.

Quit complaining and take personal action to help a neighbor!

JocoPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Still nothing from the Senate on Universal Background checks or Red Flag laws...

---

What would you like to change with the current NICs background check?

---

Require it for any and all sales or transfer of a firearm?

caryking said:

---

This whole gun debate is a bunch of crap. We are born with the right to own guns. The founders made it clear that government does not have a right to interfere with that right.

If you really care about people, go into your local community and do something. Paint someone's house, find a family in need and provide them food. Provide a way to the store. Provide something.

When everyone does something on their own accord, then this country will start being better, not perfect. BTW, doing something is not campaigning for the next politician that promises to give a new program to a group of people.

Quit complaining and take personal action to help a neighbor!

---

This is like saying you should fight world hunger by giving a random person a pack of crackers. Nonsense.

And really, if you were born with the right to own guns then there should be no restrictions of any kind on any gun you can possess. Children should be able to carry automatic weapons down the middle of the street no problem. Now I assume you're not advocating for that, are you? If not, then I would ask why it's not common sense to have a Federal system of background checks required for any and all transfers of a firearm?

statefan91 said:

---

JocoPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Still nothing from the Senate on Universal Background checks or Red Flag laws...

---

What would you like to change with the current NICs background check?

---

Require it for any and all sales or transfer of a firearm?

---

It currently is for any and all transfers between licensed FFL dealers and other parties.

Doesn't look like there is any requirement on background check or permits for shotguns, rifles, private transfers, unlicensed sellers, etc. Please let me know if I'm wrong on that.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/north-carolina/

North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-402: May not transfer a handgun to an individual who has not obtained a permit, for which a background check is required.
No background check requirement for private sales of rifles or shotguns.

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

statefan91 said:

---

Doesn't look like there is any requirement on background check or permits for shotguns, rifles, private transfers, unlicensed sellers, etc. Please let me know if I'm wrong on that.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/north-carolina/

North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-402: May not transfer a handgun to an individual who has not obtained a permit, for which a background check is required.
No background check requirement for private sales of rifles or shotguns.

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

---

Federal Form 4473 is required along with NICS background check for ALL firearm transfers from a Federally licensed dealer to an individual unless it is a handgun transfer which requires a county-issued purchase permit, or a state-issued concealed handgun permit(both of which require strict background check to obtain) in order to purchase. Literally the only way to acquire a firearm without background check is to purchase one through an individual via face-to-face transaction. No way to legislate that to require a background check.

statefan91 said:

---

Doesn't look like there is any requirement on background check or permits for shotguns, rifles, private transfers, unlicensed sellers, etc. Please let me know if I'm wrong on that.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/north-carolina/

North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-402: May not transfer a handgun to an individual who has not obtained a permit, for which a background check is required.
No background check requirement for private sales of rifles or shotguns.

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

---

You are wrong

Ok - so are all Gun Sellers FFL? If not, why not? There should be zero opportunity for someone to purchase or receive a gun without going through the background check you mentioned via NICS or, already having gone through the steps to get a N.C. pistol purchase permit or N.C. concealed handgun permit.

https://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/Master-Firearms-Publication-October-2018.pdf

I'm legitimately trying to understand an alternative point of view on why every gun transaction shouldn't require a background check through the aforementioned database.

Looking at a local NC company, this is also extremely concerning. Sounds like NC enables straw purchases with plausible deniability to say "I didn't know they couldn't have a gun"

http://www.pointblankrange.com/how-to-purchase-a-firearm/

Can I buy a gun to give to someone else?
Yes and No.
There's no federal law or NC law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state. The following states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and the District of Columbia require you to transfer a firearm through a local firearms retailer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun. Maryland and Pennsylvania require a background check for private party transfer of a handgun. There are exceptions, so it's important to carefully check the law of your state or ask your local firearms retailer.

HOWEVER, don't forget that you can never under any circumstances transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe legally can't own one. That's a federal felony, so be careful. Never agree to purchase a gun for someone you don't know. That's called a "straw purchase". You are basically serving as someone else's patsy and it could get you into BIG trouble.

statefan91 said:

---

Ok - so are all Gun Sellers FFL? If not, why not? There should be zero opportunity for someone to purchase or receive a gun without going through the background check you mentioned via NICS or, already having gone through the steps to get a N.C. pistol purchase permit or N.C. concealed handgun permit.

https://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/Master-Firearms-Publication-October-2018.pdf

I'm legitimately trying to understand an alternative point of view on why every gun transaction shouldn't require a background check through the aforementioned database.

Looking at a local NC company, this is also extremely concerning. Sounds like NC enables straw purchases with plausible deniability to say "I didn't know they couldn't have a gun"

http://www.pointblankrange.com/how-to-purchase-a-firearm/

Can I buy a gun to give to someone else?
Yes and No.
There's no federal law or NC law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state. The following states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and the District of Columbia require you to transfer a firearm through a local firearms retailer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun. Maryland and Pennsylvania require a background check for private party transfer of a handgun. There are exceptions, so it's important to carefully check the law of your state or ask your local firearms retailer.

HOWEVER, don't forget that you can never under any circumstances transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe legally can't own one. That's a federal felony, so be careful. Never agree to purchase a gun for someone you don't know. That's called a "straw purchase". You are basically serving as someone else's patsy and it could get you into BIG trouble.

---

Straw exchanges are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison. I have dealt with them in first-hand experience.

Either way, you're looking to regulate something that will be bypassed regardless of laws in place.

If someone wants to shoot-up a school, do you think they're going to go the legal way of purchasing a firearm?

And on the flipside of that, I know my dad can have a firearm. If I decide to buy him a new Benelli shotgun for Christmas should we have to go to a gun store for a background check? He has a concealed weapons permit, meaning it would literally just be some BS paperwork.


With that said, I do get what you're saying. Ideally, it would be best for every gun transaction to include some form of background check. However, that's just not going to happen. No way to legislate it. You can't regulate Jim Bob selling a gun to Rufus in the Bojangles parking lot. That should fall on the individual selling to make sure the person they are selling to is in-fact capable of owning the firearm, which there are already laws for.

Theoretically you could regulate all of that, including Rufus's purchase. It's fine if you don't think it's worth it (the financial cost, the administration, etc) but it could be done, just like a million other things are regulated and legislated. Exchange of guns seems like something that should be a bit higher priority but what do I know.

FYI, the FBI found that the guns used in a majority of mass shootings were purchased legally. The El Paso shooter, as an alternative, purchased from a private seller like Rufus did and then went and shot up the Wal-Mart.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view

Key Findings of the Phase II Study

1. The 63 active shooters examined in this study did not appear to be uniform in any way such that they could be readily identified prior to attacking based on demographics alone.

2. Active shooters take time to plan and prepare for the attack, with 77% of the subjects spending a week or longer planning their attack and 46% spending a week or longer actually preparing (procuring the means) for the attack.

3. A majority of active shooters obtained their firearms legally, with only very small percentages obtaining a firearm illegally.

4. The FBI could only verify that 25% of active shooters in the study had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Of those diagnosed, only three had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

5. Active shooters were typically experiencing multiple stressors (an average of 3.6 separate stressors) in the year before they attacked.

6. On average, each active shooter displayed 4 to 5 concerning behaviors over time that were observable to others around the shooter. The most frequently occurring concerning behaviors were related to the active shooter's mental health, problematic interpersonal interactions, and leakage of violent intent.

7. For active shooters under age 18, school peers and teachers were more likely to observe concerning behaviors than family members. For active shooters 18 years old and over, spouses/domestic partners were the most likely to observe concerning behaviors.

8. When concerning behavior was observed by others, the most common response was to communicate directly to the active shooter (83%) or do nothing (54%). In 41% of the cases the concerning behavior was reported to law enforcement. Therefore, just because concerning behavior was recognized does not necessarily mean that it was reported to law enforcement.

9. In those cases where the active shooter's primary grievance could be identified, the most common grievances were related to an adverse interpersonal or employment action against the shooter (49%).

10. In the majority of cases (64%) at least one of the victims was specifically targeted by the active shooter

statefan91 said:

---

Theoretically you could regulate all of that, including Rufus's purchase. It's fine if you don't think it's worth it (the financial cost, the administration, etc) but it could be done, just like a million other things are regulated and legislated. Exchange of guns seems like something that should be a bit higher priority but what do I know.

FYI, the FBI found that the guns used in a majority of mass shootings were purchased legally. The El Paso shooter, as an alternative, purchased from a private seller like Rufus did and then went and shot up the Wal-Mart.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view

Key Findings of the Phase II Study

1. The 63 active shooters examined in this study did not appear to be uniform in any way such that they could be readily identified prior to attacking based on demographics alone.

2. Active shooters take time to plan and prepare for the attack, with 77% of the subjects spending a week or longer planning their attack and 46% spending a week or longer actually preparing (procuring the means) for the attack.

3. A majority of active shooters obtained their firearms legally, with only very small percentages obtaining a firearm illegally.

4. The FBI could only verify that 25% of active shooters in the study had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Of those diagnosed, only three had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

5. Active shooters were typically experiencing multiple stressors (an average of 3.6 separate stressors) in the year before they attacked.

6. On average, each active shooter displayed 4 to 5 concerning behaviors over time that were observable to others around the shooter. The most frequently occurring concerning behaviors were related to the active shooter's mental health, problematic interpersonal interactions, and leakage of violent intent.

7. For active shooters under age 18, school peers and teachers were more likely to observe concerning behaviors than family members. For active shooters 18 years old and over, spouses/domestic partners were the most likely to observe concerning behaviors.

8. When concerning behavior was observed by others, the most common response was to communicate directly to the active shooter (83%) or do nothing (54%). In 41% of the cases the concerning behavior was reported to law enforcement. Therefore, just because concerning behavior was recognized does not necessarily mean that it was reported to law enforcement.

9. In those cases where the active shooter's primary grievance could be identified, the most common grievances were related to an adverse interpersonal or employment action against the shooter (49%).

10. In the majority of cases (64%) at least one of the victims was specifically targeted by the active shooter

---

You've been arguing for something that you just pointed out yourself wouldn't have helped anyway.

The guns have been purchased legally. AFTER a background check. So if the majority of the ones used in crimes WERE purchased legally, AFTER said background check, then W-T-F would more regulation help?

Aren't gun laws different in every state? The El Paso shooter couldn't pass a normal background check for a purchase, but because it's legal for him to buy it from a private seller with no expectation of a background check. Just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement upon the law. There are lots of things that used to be legal that one day people realized didn't make any sense.

This isn't about this law or that law. This isn't about what YOU think is commonsense. This is about the US Constitution!

The government has ZERO constitutional power to regulate guns. Ok, so, they have already; however, it doesn't make it constitutional. Anybody can rationalize any argument. I'm not about that... I'm about constitutional powers.

What you think is common sense, I may not. What I think is common sense, you may not. That the beauty of liberty. Government control of anything takes something away from one and gives it to another. In this case, according to you, it sounds like common sense is your justification.

When the day comes that the government starts telling YOU what app can be on your cell phone, will you consider that common sense?

caryking said:

---

This isn't about this law or that law. This isn't about what YOU think is commonsense. This is about the US Constitution!

The government has ZERO constitutional power to regulate guns. Ok, so, they have already; however, it doesn't make it constitutional. Anybody can rationalize any argument. I'm not about that... I'm about constitutional powers.

What you think is common sense, I may not. What I think is common sense, you may not. That the beauty of liberty. Government control of anything takes something away from one and gives it to another. In this case, according to you, it sounds like common sense is your justification.

When the day comes that the government starts telling YOU what app can be on your cell phone, will you consider that common sense?

---

This is untrue.

Ground_Chuck said:

---

caryking said:

---

This isn't about this law or that law. This isn't about what YOU think is commonsense. This is about the US Constitution!

The government has ZERO constitutional power to regulate guns. Ok, so, they have already; however, it doesn't make it constitutional. Anybody can rationalize any argument. I'm not about that... I'm about constitutional powers.

What you think is common sense, I may not. What I think is common sense, you may not. That the beauty of liberty. Government control of anything takes something away from one and gives it to another. In this case, according to you, it sounds like common sense is your justification.

When the day comes that the government starts telling YOU what app can be on your cell phone, will you consider that common sense?

---

This is untrue.

---

How so?

JocoPack said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

caryking said:

---

This isn't about this law or that law. This isn't about what YOU think is commonsense. This is about the US Constitution!

The government has ZERO constitutional power to regulate guns. Ok, so, they have already; however, it doesn't make it constitutional. Anybody can rationalize any argument. I'm not about that... I'm about constitutional powers.

What you think is common sense, I may not. What I think is common sense, you may not. That the beauty of liberty. Government control of anything takes something away from one and gives it to another. In this case, according to you, it sounds like common sense is your justification.

When the day comes that the government starts telling YOU what app can be on your cell phone, will you consider that common sense?

---

This is untrue.

---

How so?

---

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

JocoPack said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

caryking said:

---

This isn't about this law or that law. This isn't about what YOU think is commonsense. This is about the US Constitution!

The government has ZERO constitutional power to regulate guns. Ok, so, they have already; however, it doesn't make it constitutional. Anybody can rationalize any argument. I'm not about that... I'm about constitutional powers.

What you think is common sense, I may not. What I think is common sense, you may not. That the beauty of liberty. Government control of anything takes something away from one and gives it to another. In this case, according to you, it sounds like common sense is your justification.

When the day comes that the government starts telling YOU what app can be on your cell phone, will you consider that common sense?

---

This is untrue.

---

How so?

---

Congress's power to regulate firearms come from the Commerce Clause.

Unfortunately, Congress believes they can regulate nearly anything via the Commerce Clause. One of the dark spots of the constitution.

JocoPack said:

---

Unfortunately, Congress believes they can regulate nearly anything via the Commerce Clause. One of the dark spots of the constitution.

---

It agreed that Congress can regulate the sell of weapons via the Commerce Clause. Its not an issue for serious legal debate.