• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

Dealers selling at gun shows also have to submit a 4473 for the buyer. There is nothing special about a gun show. What you're referring to are private sales at gun shows. There is no gun show loophole.
Isn't that the main place private sales are made? Especially if you didn't care about the legality and just wanted to make a buck? If they sold on consignment at a dealers shop they'd be held to all the restrictions a dealer faces.
 
Isn't that the main place private sales are made? Especially if you didn't care about the legality and just wanted to make a buck? If they sold on consignment at a dealers shop they'd be held to all the restrictions a dealer faces.
I'm sure that's a popular place to sell privately, but there are plenty of other gun groups and forums where face-to-face private sales happen.

I'm fine with private sellers wanting to trade/sell at a show, but I don't like the fact that so many try to play private seller when they have a table full of a dozen firearms they're trying to sell without an FFL. Especially if they set up at multiple shows. You're in the business of selling firearms. Get an FFL.
 
There are people with histories of violent crime that you'd let out of jail at some point but you wouldn't want them to have access to firearms.
If they're rehabed enough to allow them to get out they should be able to exercise all of their rights. Right?

I think here in NYC the safety precautions are a bit stiff but I'm all for things like red flag laws that can point to mentally disturbed people and restrictions for people that have shown themselves to be illegally violent.
If due process is involved I'm fine with people being deemed a prohibited possessor. I just believe that most of them shouldn't be out in society if they're flagged for a violent offense preventing them from owning a firearm in most cases.
 
If they're rehabed enough to allow them to get out they should be able to exercise all of their rights. Right?


If due process is involved I'm fine with people being deemed a prohibited possessor. I just believe that most of them shouldn't be out in society if they're flagged for a violent offense preventing them from owning a firearm in most cases.
You can't lock people up forever and unfortunately whatever sentence they receive doesn't mean they're going to be rehabilitated once they get out.
 
What does gun control mean and represent to you?

I don't doubt that many of the ordinary citizens who advocate for it do so with the best of intentions. But for me, it is fundamentally the de facto enabling of authoritarian government actions (large scale) and violent criminals (small scale) by depriving the liberty of law-abiding citizens from exercising what I consider a fundamental human right and one that is also an explicitly enumerated Constitutional right in the United States. It strips the legal backing and means of people to protect their person, family, and property. It is utterly indefensible, intolerable, and unconscionable on every conceivable level.





Contrary to popular (and defeatist) belief of some Ameribros, 2A rights have not been increasingly infringed upon and restricted in the 21st century where the law is actually concerned. In fact, they have expanded if anything, at least where keeping and bearing firearms for the explicit purpose of self-defense is concerned. This is not to say there hasn't been a large effort or perpetual threats made from activist groups and government officials to do so. They are just simply losing, and they need to keep losing indefinitely -- on local, state, and federal levels alike.

Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Second Amendment. The ruling struck down the Sullivan Act, a 1911 New York state law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show "proper cause" or "special need". Expanding on the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the court ruled that the Second Amendment also protects an individual's right to carry a firearm in public for the purposes of self-defense.




<TrumpWrong1> I don't need a permit to buy a semi-auto "long gun" in California <36><JagsKiddingMe>
 
But most of the time you can't for non deadly crime.
Wouldn't that qualify the person to be able to legally buy a firearm? Since if they were truly a danger to society they'd be locked up?
 
You fill out the federal form for any ffl gun purchase. If you knowing lie on that form you should get an automatic 15 years with no parole along with time for any other crime you commit. That must be consecutively after you have served any other time if that applies.

Same with straw purchase and using any gun in a crime. You get the 15 added on to the end.

See that's a start of criminal control and cutting gun violence drastically.

These measures don’t create any real preventive measures. They just punish after the gun has gotten into the wrong persons hands and they committed a crime with it. That’s not really cutting gun violence it’s punishing it after the fact.

I don’t think most people committing violence with firearms are going to have a change of heart over the threat of another fifteen years. You’re relying on the better judgement of criminals here.

don’t think those parents who kids gets shot will feel any more assured their shooter has some more jail time to look at.
 
Wouldn't that qualify the person to be able to legally buy a firearm? Since if they were truly a danger to society they'd be locked up?
No. There are reports all the time of violent offenders being released only to have them quickly commit more crimes.
 
These measures don’t create any real preventive measures. They just punish after the gun has gotten into the wrong persons hands and they committed a crime with it. That’s not really cutting gun violence it’s punishing it after the fact.

I don’t think most people committing violence with firearms are going to have a change of heart over the threat of another fifteen years. You’re relying on the better judgement of criminals here.

don’t think those parents who kids gets shot will feel any more assured their shooter has some more jail time to look at.

The crime was having the gun not the additional crime if they commit one with it. It's mandatory 15 years just for having the gun. They catch felons with guns all the time and they get little to no time. If you are a violence felony and you use that gun to commit a violent crime you get life. You had your warning.

That won't stop all gun violence for sure but it will greatly reduce it one way or the other. They either will avoid guns or be separated from society.
 
The crime was having the gun not the additional crime if they commit one with it. It's mandatory 15 years just for having the gun. They catch felons with guns all the time and they get little to no time. If you are a violence felony and you use that gun to commit a violent crime you get life. You had your warning.

That won't stop all gun violence for sure but it will greatly reduce it one way or the other. They either will avoid guns or be separated from society.

I mean sure it's a step but if I'm understanding what you're proposing correctly it's all still punitive measures taken after the wrong person gets possession of the weapon they should not have access to and hinges on hoping that cops luckily come across them carrying the guns before they use it.

I don't think this has a great affect except maybe building more prisons.
 
If they're rehabed enough to allow them to get out they should be able to exercise all of their rights. Right?


If due process is involved I'm fine with people being deemed a prohibited possessor. I just believe that most of them shouldn't be out in society if they're flagged for a violent offense preventing them from owning a firearm in most cases.

In reality you have to have some distinction between "shouldn't have limited access to guns" and "must be imprisoned for life" because part of being in a society is accepting some risk instead of institutionalizing people forever to avoid it.
 
No. There are reports all the time of violent offenders being released only to have them quickly commit more crimes.
Which means they should've stayed locked up . . . which has been my point this whole time.
 
Back
Top