Armed Man Arrested on School Grounds claims to be Sovereign Citizen

[JohnR! 5,495]

Sure you can. You need a licensed driver for that but that licensed driver does not have to be you.

Besides you can get insurance without a DL.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

good luck trying to register it or get insurance on it without one.

See above.

[james&olya 1,121]

why support more feel good laws when the ones in place aren't enforced and don't have all states participating?

The success of refusing to allow the purchase of a firearm by those ineligible is not contingent on also locking that person in jail at tax-payer expense! Why are you so focused on punishment when the purpose of the law is not punishment but controlling access to firearms? Closing the gun show and private sale loophole is the one major improvement that can be made to make the law begin to have significant effect. How big an effect is a matter of conjecture since we have never gotten a universal background check system in place. Why are you so opposed to trying? Are you afraid you or your buddies would get denied? How many more children and other innocents must be slaughtered before you and your NRA buddies will relent?

[james&olya 1,121]

For the life of me, I don't understand why you right-wingers buy into this liberal talking point that we have a gun violence problem. 11,000 gun homicides a a year in a country this large is not a huge problem. It just isn't.

Reeeeeaaaalllllyyy? I would so like you to get the repug candidates for national office to adopt THAT particular talking point! See how far that gets with the voting public!

[Harsh_77 716]

How will there aleays be a venue? If every venue requires a background check then what is the venue that remains available? Again, do you think it would make sense to have two lines into an airport - one with security screen and one without? Of course not. Same goes for venues that trade in firearms. Some require background checks but others do not. That makes no sense at all.

So is this your understanding if a univ background check is applied someone who is not allowed to own a weapon will never be able to acquire one?

[GandD 5,966]

There is difference but my point is similar situations happen everyday.

Do you need a univ registry for it?

I see a point for people not qualified to drive no longer being allowed to drive if that's what you're asking. Taking away their licence should suffice. A car sitting in their driveway being not being used is not a criminal offense. Owning a gun when you're not legally qualified to own one is not. If a law abiding citizen legally purchases a gun and then in a fit of rage shoots and kills another human and found guilty, they've forfeited their rights to not only purchase guns, but own them going forward in my mind. How else would you know what guns they have without a registry of some sort?

[mota bhai 2,675]

So is this your understanding if a univ background check is applied someone who is not allowed to own a weapon will never be able to acquire one?

The argument being made is that with universal background checks, there will be no legal route to purchasing a weapon without a background check.

The argument is not, and has never been, that a universal background check will apply to illegal purchases.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

The success of refusing to allow the purchase of a firearm by those ineligible is not contingent on also locking that person in jail at tax-payer expense! Why are you so focused on punishment when the purpose of the law is not punishment but controlling access to firearms? Closing the gun show and private sale loophole is the one major improvement that can be made to make the law begin to have significant effect. How big an effect is a matter of conjecture since we have never gotten a universal background check system in place. Why are you so opposed to trying? Are you afraid you or your buddies would get denied? How many more children and other innocents must be slaughtered before you and your NRA buddies will relent?

because those that are ineligible are trying to circumvent the law? if there's no punishment, what is the purpose of the law then?

[GandD 5,966]

You do need proof of insurance, though. Can you get that without a license?

I can tell you for a fact that SOME insurance companies in KY will not issue insurance without a valid KY drivers license. Been going through this ####### with my wife still having a Canadian drivers license.

[Harsh_77 716]

I see a point for people not qualified to drive no longer being allowed to drive if that's what you're asking. Taking away their licence should suffice. A car sitting in their driveway being not being used is not a criminal offense. Owning a gun when you're not legally qualified to own one is not. If a law abiding citizen legally purchases a gun and then in a fit of rage shoots and kills another human and found guilty, they've forfeited their rights to not only purchase guns, but own them going forward in my mind. How else would you know what guns they have without a registry of some sort?

If there is a shooting and a person is found guilty most likely at that point state already owns the gun as evidence.

I highly doubt the state would return it back to the owner.

Put his name on the list as an offender create and maintain a registry of offender, there is no problem with that.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Harsh_77

[Harsh_77 716]

I can tell you for a fact that SOME insurance companies in KY will not issue insurance without a valid KY drivers license. Been going through this ####### with my wife still having a Canadian drivers license.

Insurance companies do require the DL.

As they run a check against the DL number for violation, age verification etc.

The argument being made is that with universal background checks, there will be no legal route to purchasing a weapon without a background check.

The argument is not, and has never been, that a universal background check will apply to illegal purchases.

So what prob is Univ background check solving?

[GandD 5,966]

If there is a shooting and a person is found guilty most likely at that point state already owns the gun as evidence.

I highly doubt the state would return it back to the owner.

Put his name on the list as an offender create and maintain a registry of offender, there is no problem with that.

Well unless he had multiple guns. I just don't see the problem with a national gun registry. But then I don't think its a slippery slope to taking away all the guns so I suppose I'll never understand this point of view.

[mota bhai 2,675]

So what prob is Univ background check solving?

The problem of ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally.

[james&olya 1,121]

The same registry could be used to target the legal gun owners for other things as well.

You do know that the government already has you on lists. Many of them probably. Owning a car, having a job, owning real estate, getting hunting or fishing licenses just to start. If you carry a cell phone you can even be having your movements tracked. Internet traffic is probably being screened by DHS. And you worry that they might figure out you exist based on a gun purchase record?

[Harsh_77 716]

You do know that the government already has you on lists. Many of them probably. Owning a car, having a job, owning real estate, getting hunting or fishing licenses just to start. If you carry a cell phone you can even be having your movements tracked. Internet traffic is probably being screened by DHS. And you worry that they might figure out you exist based on a gun purchase record?

Do govt also needs to know when I purchase or sell gun on top of this?

The problem of ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally.

How many of these ineligible individuals are going to purchase firearms legally?