Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

Ahhhh, . . . AM radio. DonDiego remembers as an adolescent lying in bed listening to Jean Shepard out of WOR New York, spinning yarns and painting word-pictures of a better-than-real America. Then he'd fall asleep, . . . calmly. That's DonDiego who'd fall asleep, not Jean Shepard.

But, DonDiego digresses.

Here's the deal, background checks already have no effect on gun seeking felons, because they do not engage in commerce with legitimate licensed firearms dealers who already perform background checks. They go to "'Big Mike-down-the-street' who can get get ya' what ya' need."

In fact, the Federal background check scenario which arshaleign [AKA forkush] describes is the requirement right now. From arshaleign's [AKA forkush's] own reference: "U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are 'engaged in the business' of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm." Convicted bad guys know this so they do not engage in commerce with gun dealers now.

Also from arshaleign's [AKA forkush's] reference: "Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 . . . individuals 'not engaged in the business' of dealing firearms, or who only make 'occasional' sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms)."

So, if Congress institutes "universal background checks" the bad guys will continue to not go to a licensed gun dealer as they do not now for their required firearms. They will continue to go to the unlicensed neighborhood entrepreneur engaged in trafficking legal and illegal firearms, who will, as today, not require a background check. The only difference under a "universal" background check is that such "private" transactions which may be legal now would be illegal.

BobOrme made an excellent point. In the City of Chicago it is presently illegal to sell or purchase any firearm. In spite of this ban, DonDiego asserts an occasional firearm transaction transpires.

Universal background checks will not include any medical records, so a person a psychologocal history but no felonies will still be able to get a gun.

Consider yourself made
aware.

"On Thursday, California Democrats proposed a series of strict gun control laws that could lead to the confiscation of as many as 166,000 legally registered weapons.

Under the new laws being proposed, all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, the Mercury News said. Additionally, all guns would be registered and "no ammunition could be bought" without a special permit.

"It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state's 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners," the Mercury News added."

Bull. Big Mike down the street charges MORE than Bubba at the gun show, because illegal items are priced at the normal value of the item PLUS an additional amount to cover the risk factor of getting caught.

Illegal guns cost more simply because they are illegal, as do illegal drugs, illegal Freon, and illegal Cuban cigars. I'm surprised DonDiego didn't know that.

Gun registration would uncover major straw purchasers of weapons, who should then be convicted of murder if any of their purchases result in a murder. As it is now, straw purchasers can buy guns in states with non-existent contols and funnel them into big cities with much less risk.

"Bull. Big Mike down the street charges MORE than Bubba at the gun show"

Because he can. If there were no buyers for illegal guns; he would have to charge less. Because there are a lot of buyers (otherwise known as criminals) he would have to charge less than thee gun dealers

Oh goodness!

It's like, . . . like, . . . like meldebewy can forecast the future, . . . or there is a Party that does want to take guns away from citizens.

Check, . . . and mate.

Yes! A committee in the California Assembly ! Irrefutable proof of the nationwide DNC platform! I feel so slam dunked.

I thought our conversation was in the context of national government but nevertheless I'll concede the point that some states have moved more aggressively than the Federal legislature. Melbedewey and Don Diego are so smart. We should not consider any gun legislation at the national level because the underlying motivation of the national Democratic party is to take away your gun (not assault weapons, mind you, GUNS- all guns). See a committee in the California State Assembly for proof.

its like...like....Ted Nugent became a member of LVA

It doesn't really matter what he charges. Clearly there will be people who obtain illegal weapons in the wake of any new uiniversal background check. The question is will it be fewer or more than now? Thats largely a rhetorical question for anyone that doesn't live in an apocolypse bunker.

Unfortunately, the new metric by which NRA disciples measure any proposed legislation is that it must prevent 100% of all future gun incidents. Any legislation that falls short of this metric is by their definition useless and not worthwhile. I'm glad that logic didn't apply when my state passed DUI laws.

See ! See !

DonDiego was right. When he and Chilcoot agreed that this thread was circling the bowl, DonDiego was wrong. The thread actually improved since that post.

Checkmate? As I previously pointed out, in further motivating women to abandon the GOP, Obama may be playing chess while the gun fondlers are playing checkers. Perhaps the next time you feel the need to be a fluffer for melbedewy, you should just say, "King me!" (or "King DonDiego!" Your choice.)