Ben,

I know that your tongue in cheek law list says that private sales should have a background check.

What if private sales had to be conducted through NICS and the local gun retailer was paid a fee (by the buyer) to take care of it.

New guns have to go through the procedure, why should private sales be exempt?

It would protect the seller if the buyer uses the gun in a crime (or it is stolen and used in a crime) as law enforcement would have the name and address of the new owner and a place to start their investigation.

If you feel this constitutes gun registration, new guns are already put into the system so why should private sales be exempted from the same scrutiny?

If the fee was low I don't see the hardship this could cause.

Jim

What's so wrong with that?

Okay guys, April fools, just kidding. Settle down.

Just trying to rattle your chains and play along with the intent of the posts.

Jim

Jim,

I personally think that anyone (non-retalier) who sells a gun is doing themselves a disservice if they don't at least keep a record of who they sold the gun to. If they want the added peace of mind of having an individual's name run through NICS they should negotiate this into the terms of the sale.

If it were mandated by the govt that all private transfers had to be run through NICS and access to NICS was fee based, then I would think that this provision would constitute an additional tax on firearms and we all know there are enough taxes imposed already.

As for my blood pressure - it would probably go down considerably if there was a law on the books that mandated a CO2 emmissions standard for all rifles. Maybe then people would quit shooting all those big smelly magnum cartridges, with all that smoke, noise, and CO2 and switch over to the much more fuel efficient (an eco-friendly) rimfires - such as the .22short (even better if they could switch to CB's) - just make sure they're loaded with steel or copper, since we don't want anything to die from lead poisoning.

A law like that would let me breathe easy and help reduce my oh so high blood pressure.

I think that shooting should be a part of the legal state primary education curricula.

I think no child should be able to enter the first grade if they don't know the 4 rules of shooting (my three year old knows them)

To graduate from high school, you should have to hit 20 out of 25 skeet, put 10 rounds in 10 inches at 100 yards (rifle of your choice) and 10 rounds in 10 inches at 10 yards (pistol of your choice), as well as demonstrate an understanding of safety and laws.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. At All.

Mike -

You're not selling me on this one. I can't stand for government handouts - even one that would be as great as that. The problem is the government goes to the lowest bidder, so we'd likely be stuck with some strange 1 shot p.o.s. handgun with a history of jamming.

That and I don't understand how your law would help the environment or The Children. Don't you know that laws can't be passed unless they help the environment of The Children.

We really need to take this law passing business serious - not too long ago (6 years by legal definitions) I was one of The Children and all these laws didn't help me. I still have to go to work everyday. Could we pass some new laws (and backdate them) that will help me out of this situation?

Back on topic - we need to ban sights on guns. Without sights people won't be able to hit their targets, thus making guns safer. And since we all know that guns are designed to kill The Children, such a law would keep The Children safer.

I've got a great idea for a gun law. It would go something like this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

By implying that the only arms allowed are those which would be appropriate for militia use, we can prevent tanks and nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of criminals.

yours/
peter.

Would it not be wonderful if we had a law that prevented criminals from buying guns That way, the only people who could buy guns are people with no intent to commit a crime and no criminal background. Perhaps if we banned all people from owning guns then maybe nobody would get hurt by guns since guns would be illegal and people don't want to break the law and the only people attempting to buy guns would be criminals and the police would lock them up before they got to you and so you wouldn't need to own a gun in the first place and then they would have time to pass laws requiring the use of periods commas and capitalization in all posts on the internet wouldn't that be wonderful

Gun control - being skilled enough to always hit the target.

The only kind of gun control that seems reasonable to me.

Make it a capital crime to make a movie, tv show, music video, etc. with one or more doofuses (doofi?) holding a perfectly good handgun sideways.

I propose an IRS Audit for gun owners. If people are not paying their fair share why should they have the privilege of owning a gun?

And besides BATF is part of the Treasury Dept. It makes sense.

BTW all gun owners should be tattooed on the genitals. Then you would know who you are f****n with.

My dad put me in Jr. NRA 50' Indoor .22 competitions just as soon as I was old enough. I got to Sharpshooter Bar IV, I believe. Later, in high school, I was in Jr. ROTC, where 50' Indoor .22 shooting was part of the carriculum. I cleaned everybody's plow due to my previous experience.

It ought to be the law that every kid has the opportunity to learn to shoot like I did, and those who do ought to be able to carry any firearm they want... but only in places where a police officer is allowed to carry one. ;^)