Just an Earth-Bound Misfit: The Rantings of an Aging, Armed, Pinko Chick

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"Thou Shalt Get Sidetracked by Bullshit, Every Goddamned Time." -- The Ghoul

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck,
"FOFF" = Felonious Old Fat Fuck,
"COFF" = Convicted Old Felonious Fool,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset,
A/K/A P01135809, A/K/A Dementia Donnie, A/K/A Felon^34,
A/K/A Dolt-45, A/K/A Don Snoreleone

Monday, May 8, 2017

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Nevada's new private-party background check law is a nullity.

Seems that the anti-gun crowd there wrote their referendum to require that Fart, Barf and Itch do the background checks. They did it that way because they believed that their proposal would have failed if the state did it, because the state would have passed the cost along to the parties.

Thing is, the Feebies aren't going to do background checks unless Federal law says they have to. And since Federal law doesn't require background checks for transfers between residents of the same state, the Feds are effectively telling the Nevada anti-gunners to go shit in their hats.

Which means that Nevada's private-party background check law is a dead parrot.

(H/T)

9 comments:

BadTux said...: Cool! So I, J. Random Criminal, now know how I can get a gun without a FBI background check -- just buy it from a private party in Nevada!; 5/08/2017 8:40 PM
Comrade Misfit said...: Which is pretty much the state of the law in, oh, 40 states or so.; 5/08/2017 9:09 PM
CenterPuke88 said...: Agreed, it's a problem...but just tossing legislation at it isn't the solution. I feel most gun rights types would accept a decent way to keep.the guns outta the hands of the criminals...but it's gonna be a totally different form than the anti-gun crowd imagine, I suspect. Maybe a small tax on gun sales, a token amount, for which you need a stamp...then use the tax laws against the criminals?; 5/08/2017 11:24 PM
Tod Germanica said...: There are gun control advocates in the State of Sin? Shocking, who knew? I thought the state motto was "anything goes". Probably about as many sexual chastity and prohibition advocates in Nevada.; 5/09/2017 12:39 PM
3383 said...: What is a decent way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Without infringing on the rights of non-criminals, preferably.; 5/09/2017 3:39 PM
BadTux said...: I don't see how being required to do a private party transfer via a FFT who does a background check adversely impairs the ability of someone who is a non-felon to keep and bear arms. There's plenty of evidence that most guns in the hands of convicted felons come from private party transfers, generally straw buyers who then sell the guns to the felons or private party transfers from a family member to the felon. Right now, in most states there's nothing to charge the straw buyer or family member with, he claims he sold the gun to the felon six months after he bought it because he was tired of it and was unaware the felon's gun rights had been revoked with his felony conviction, well, that's legal in 40 states. But in California, it's 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine -- enough to be a disincentive.

And in case you wonder, California's murders per capita are 75% of Nevada's. Undoubtedly if Arizona and Nevada weren't a major source of illegal weapons possessed by felons in California, it'd be even lower.; 5/09/2017 6:56 PM
3383 said...: BadTux, it is perfectly legal property being sold. I can sell anything I own to a buyer if we agree on price, and that covers items not mentioned in the fucking Bill of Rights.

Having to use a FFL holder impairs us in several ways. The transaction must be done during working hours of the FFL holder. The FFL holder does not provide this service for free; the FFL holder might not be interested in helping undercut his own business at all. An FFL holder must be located and coordinated with; not everyone has a license holder next door. Last, the government could cease issuing licenses, or make that more of a pain than it currently is.

Sure, it is promoted as constricting the illegal sale of firearms. But it definitely constricts the legal sale of firearms.

Everyone's "sane" gun laws are designed to get closer to de facto firearm bans like D.C. and Chicago. Our Proposition 63 is a result of Gavin Newsome's family tragedy from decades ago- but what common sense gun control law would have prevented his grandfather's suicide?; 5/10/2017 1:15 AM
BadTux said...: 3383, no, you cannot sell anything you own to a buyer if you agree on price. You cannot, for example, legally sell heroin to a buyer if you agree on price. And there are numerous other items which require a license in order to legally sell them, a license which generally puts conditions on who you can sell them to. You cannot, for example, sell Oxycodone unless you have a DEA license for distributing prescription opioids, and only to people with a valid prescription, and, in most states, only if you swipe the person's driver's license or state-authorized ID through a state-supplied terminal that then tells you whether you are allowed to sell to that person or not. If you do not comply with any of that, you go to jail.

I see no difference between a firearm and Oxycodone. Both are useful for people who need them. Both cause harm in the hands of people that have no business having them, either because they're abusing prescription narcotics or because they are convicted felons whose gun rights have been stripped away by a court exercising due process under the law. In both, there is public safety issue at hand. And yes, you must pay a doctor to write a prescription before you can legally buy Oxycodone, no different from paying a FFL holder in order to legally buy a firearm. Why do you think guns should have fewer restrictions on their sale than Oxycodone? Just curious about your reasoning there. Note that the fact you have a right is enumerated in the Constitution doesn't make it an unrestricted right. I have a right, for example, to state that President Trump is a ferret-haired talking carrot. I do not, however, have a right to say to a few dozen of my anti-Trump buddies down at the Old Oak Shooting Club on a day that President Trump is scheduled to visit town, "hey, let's take our rifles and go shoot President Trump." That would be incitement to violence, which fails the Brandenburg Test bigly. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not unrestricted rights, not even the 1st Amendment. Turns out that the Supreme Court frowns upon using those rights in a way that can result in dead bodies...

Finally, regarding your concerns about FFL holders refusing to run a background check on a private party transfer, note that there are FFL holders here in California who don't sell guns at all. They advertise on the Internet and at gun clubs that they will handle private party transfers. They operate on a by appointment basis out of their homes during hours that are not typical business hours, and have gun safes on site to handle the state-mandated waiting period. In short, you're parading a straw man. What you say "might" happen, has not, in fact, happened.; 5/10/2017 2:27 AM
Comrade Misfit said...: BadTux, you have any proof? Even if an FFL operates out of his house, that FFL is still required by Federal law to do the NICS check. They still have to keep the same records. If they don't, well, it could be a real problem for them. As in "massive prison time".

Guns are not drugs. There's no provision in the Bill of Rights for drugs.; 5/10/2017 7:34 AM