Magazine Bill Amended

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Mary Scott wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Before you get your panties in a further twist, and since the conservatives here tend to make up their facts without bothering to research them, here is some public service information.
The requirement for background checks will apply to all transfers of firearms with several exceptions.

the legislation provides exceptions for:
1) gifts between immediate family members;
2) antiques and curios;
3) inheritances;
4) temporary transfers (you will be able to loan your firearm to someone for hunting, target shooting, etc.)
5) temporary transfers at designated shooting ranges (you will be able to rent or borrow)
6) designated shooting competitions;
7) if the transferee reasonably believes they are in danger of imminent harm or death.
Background checks by private individuals can be performed on their behalf by licensed gun dealers who may charge no more than $10.00 for that service. The licensed gun dealer must record that transfer and maintain the records and give a copy to the individual who is transferring the firearm.

Penalty:
If you violate this law (assuming it is enacted), by not getting a background check or by knowingly providing false information, then you are liable for a misdemeanor class 1 (which prohibits you from owning any firearm for a period of two years) and for any civil damages that may be a result of the subsequent use of the firearm.

I'll take your word for it.

It is not my word, it is Colorado House Bill 1229.

Making someone responsible for the actions someone else takes with an inanimate object is absurd. That is no different that me selling my car to someone...who is a bad driver, or drinks and drives, and make me responsible.

"feel good laws" are horrible. They do nothing, except make those who passed the law feel good. Criminals won't worry about background checks. Give a call to the ATF...find out how many guns they get from felons that are legally purchased?

So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

So you are ok with someone having a serious mental health disorder, someone who poses a danger to others, someone like James Holmes, to freely have as many firearms as they desire. Right.

And of course I did not say you should run a background check to see if someone drinks. What I said was in your response that you should not be held liable for what someone does with an inanimate object that you sold them. Certainly you should be held liable for selling an inanimate object to someone that is likely to misuse it to harm others and where you were aware of that likelihood, such as selling a car to an obvious drunk individual for their immediate use. If you choose to sell a firearm to someone who can not pass a background check, then you should be liable for any misuse of that firearm by that individual.

Even if the state of Colorado does decide to require gun registration, that has been found by the Supreme Court to be within the purview of the 2nd Amendment, even if you personally dislike it. Because under the Constitution, it can be the business of the government to know the ownership of not only firearms, but other items such as motor vehicles if they deem it to be within the general welfare of the country.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

So you are ok with someone having a serious mental health disorder, someone who poses a danger to others, someone like James Holmes, to freely have as many firearms as they desire. Right.

And of course I did not say you should run a background check to see if someone drinks. What I said was in your response that you should not be held liable for what someone does with an inanimate object that you sold them. Certainly you should be held liable for selling an inanimate object to someone that is likely to misuse it to harm others and where you were aware of that likelihood, such as selling a car to an obvious drunk individual for their immediate use. If you choose to sell a firearm to someone who can not pass a background check, then you should be liable for any misuse of that firearm by that individual.

If I sell a gun to an obviously mentally crazy person, or a car to a currently drunk person, I could probably be sued right now, without any new laws. You can sue for anything. The comparison is selling a car to an individual who appears to be fine, not currently drunk, without making sure they won't drink and drive. Same as selling a gun to a person who appears to be fine, not nuts.

How about this. Anyone can go get a "I'm not nuts" card. Just show it to anyone during purchase of a gun from any establishment. No record of the purchase will be made, they just have to see that card.

Do you want gun registration? You probably do. I don't.

that's my sentiment.

Although criminal law doesn't assign liability, civil law already does.

(I'm sure someone is already filing a lawsuit against the gun dealers that provided Holmes with firearms).

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

So you are ok with someone having a serious mental health disorder, someone who poses a danger to others, someone like James Holmes, to freely have as many firearms as they desire. Right.

And of course I did not say you should run a background check to see if someone drinks. What I said was in your response that you should not be held liable for what someone does with an inanimate object that you sold them. Certainly you should be held liable for selling an inanimate object to someone that is likely to misuse it to harm others and where you were aware of that likelihood, such as selling a car to an obvious drunk individual for their immediate use. If you choose to sell a firearm to someone who can not pass a background check, then you should be liable for any misuse of that firearm by that individual.

If I sell a gun to an obviously mentally crazy person, or a car to a currently drunk person, I could probably be sued right now, without any new laws. You can sue for anything. The comparison is selling a car to an individual who appears to be fine, not currently drunk, without making sure they won't drink and drive. Same as selling a gun to a person who appears to be fine, not nuts.

How about this. Anyone can go get a "I'm not nuts" card. Just show it to anyone during purchase of a gun from any establishment. No record of the purchase will be made, they just have to see that card.

Do you want gun registration? You probably do. I don't.

and how long is that card good for? Or how about this, have a database that can be easily accessed by approved entities to verify that person is not crazy or a felon? That would maintain the privacy of the individual and help to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them.

I have no problem with gun registration, or motor vehicle registration either. Of course, I also don't have any tin foil hats lying around, or a fear of black helicopters flying overhead. I am a strong believer in being held accountable and responsible for my possessions and my actions.

Something the Dog Said wrote: and how long is that card good for? Or how about this, have a database that can be easily accessed by approved entities to verify that person is not crazy or a felon? That would maintain the privacy of the individual and help to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them.

I have no problem with gun registration, or motor vehicle registration either. Of course, I also don't have any tin foil hats lying around, or a fear of black helicopters flying overhead. I am a strong believer in being held accountable and responsible for my possessions and my actions.

How will you get past the ACLU, and who is going to just "crazy". Felon is already there, although felons I've come in contact with don't buy guns legally. They get them illegally. No law will change that.

Of course you don't mind gun registration. You probably don't like the 2nd amendment at all, and have no clue why the founding fathers wanted it. Obama doesn't like it either. Remember what he said...it is a document of "negative liberties"?

I'm 100% in being accountable for what I do. I'm not responsible at all for what others do.

The Supreme Court has ruled that gun registration is within the purview of the 2nd Amendment. I concur. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment or in the Constitution that would prohibit gun registration as long as it is deemed to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as requiring motor vehicles used on public roads to be registered. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment or any of the other Bill of Rights.

Mmm, databases are already in use to monitor those who have been adjudicated as a danger to others in regard to background checks. There is currently legislation being considered to enable those databases to be expanded to allow trained mental health professionals to add to those databases without being prosecuted for HIPPA or other patient confidential laws. Those who are on those databases have the ability to appeal their inclusion.

As to your assertion that since felons do not obey laws, therefore we should not have laws, that is simply absurd. Not all misuse of firearms is done by felons. In fact, James Holmes was not a felon, Adam Lanza was not a felon.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court has ruled that gun registration is within the purview of the 2nd Amendment. I concur. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment or in the Constitution that would prohibit gun registration as long as it is deemed to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as requiring motor vehicles used on public roads to be registered. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment or any of the other Bill of Rights.

Mmm, databases are already in use to monitor those who have been adjudicated as a danger to others in regard to background checks. There is currently legislation being considered to enable those databases to be expanded to allow trained mental health professionals to add to those databases without being prosecuted for HIPPA or other patient confidential laws. Those who are on those databases have the ability to appeal their inclusion.

As to your assertion that since felons do not obey laws, therefore we should not have laws, that is simply absurd. Not all misuse of firearms is done by felons. In fact, James Holmes was not a felon, Adam Lanza was not a felon.

The mental health issue is a strange one. I'd like to see how it actually works out. I'm not nuts, so I'm not worried about it. I just don't know how you would make it work in reality. Have everyone in the country see a professional for one session/yr? Per 5 yrs?

You are right...James Holmes and Adam Lanza could have purchased their own guns, and would have passed background checks....so how will new laws stop them?