jcd11235 0 #26 December 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI still want my OWN... SAW.... so I can be part of that whole well regulated Militia thing. I'd like to have an M198 for home/self defense. I'm not quite sure how to go about acquiring one, though. I think that to posses it .... Need to start with a type 1 FFL license (ATF website) [or maybe.... a C&R (curio and relic) license (read Chapter 11 of the book referenced below)]. Then you need to contact the NFA Branch (National Firearms Act Branch). Get the forms for Type 09 dealer, Type 10 manufacturer or Type 11 importer FFL license to allow you to deal in destructive devices. Then there's the Destructive Device license itself from the ATF (only $3000 for a three year license ATF but those are 1999 pricings.) And there's all the questions on what is and isn't a destructive device. For further clarification: refer to Chapter 23 of Machine Gun Dealers Bible by Dan Shea And not only the Howitzer but also each round (because it's over 50cal.[Just barely. -jcd11235]) is considered a destructive device and has a $200 tax per item. And they're hard to carry around. You can play with the big dogs... but you just gotta be willing to pay. I think the taxes would be offset by the gas savings from not having to actually drive to the range to practice.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 December 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI think I'd buy the first one and keep bringing it in for subsequent purchases... "Got a lock?" "Yup, got it right here..." How does the law work, exactly? I was under the impression that you had to purchase a lock for each gun. Unless you have a receipt showing you have a suitable gun safe (no idea what qualifies), you get a $12 or $13 tax tacked on your bill and you may get a choice of a couple models. There are no workarounds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 December 17, 2006 QuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? Someone tell me thats actually a lot more than the average US consumer is buying a month anyway? You seem to imply that there is something automatically "wrong" with someone wanting to purchase multiple guns in a month. That would be an incorrect perception. What difference does it make what the average is? In a free country, we're allowed to do things that aren't average. If someone wants to buy two guns in one month, and he's legally eligible to own firearms, then I don't see the problem. If he was going to rob a bank, he would only need one gun anyway. So what's the big deal with two? Is there some mystical force that causes people who buy two guns in the same month to go crazy and commit crimes, that they wouldn't do if they had only one gun? The idea is preposterous. How many parachute jumps does that average U.S. consumer make in a month? Would you like to be restricted to making only that number of jumps? Or would you rather be free to be different, since you aren't hurting anyone by being a skydiver? Are skydivers that own two parachute rigs more dangerous than skydivers that only own one rig? Hardly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 December 17, 2006 QuoteI recall a gun proponent here gleefully telling me that it was unconstitutional to even ask people buying guns whether they were felons. There seems to be some confusion here on this item. This does not mean that it is illegal for a gun dealer to ask someone if they are a felon. It does not mean that some gun dealers consider this a "loophole" by which to sell criminals guns. What it means is that when a felon is asked if he is a felon, it would be "self incrimination" for him to answer honestly, as that would be direct evidence that he is committing yet another felony, by trying to purchase a gun. And requiring self incrimination is unconstiitutional in criminal proceedings - that's why we have "the right to remain silent". If the felon refuses to answer the question on the form, he doesn't get the gun. However, all of this is a moot point anyway, because the gun dealer needs I.D. in order to do the background check, and he'll then find out if the potential purchaser is a former felon, regardless of whether he answered the form question truthfully or not. That being said, however, any felon looking for a gun with which to commit more crimes, won't go to a gun store unless he's dumber than a rock. He'll get the gun he wants on the black market somewhere, or through theft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 December 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteNevermind the POS trigger lock you're required to buy for each - I have quite a collection of em now. Can you resell them, so that when someone else buys a gun, and has to buy the trigger lock, they could purchase the trigger lock from you? The law requires that the gun dealer sell you a lock with every gun purchase, regardless of whether you already have all the locks you need or not. Even if you don't want the lock, you have to pay for it. Another stupid gun law... The gun-o-phobes cackle with glee at the extra expense with which they burden gun owners. The more expensive they can make gun ownership, the fewer people will bother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #31 December 17, 2006 John didn't you know that if you have more than one firearm, that you must be a criminal or involved in a insurrection? What a bunch of fucking assholes!. people complain about the abusive and all too powerful goverment, and out the other side of their pinched faces they scream "we need gun control!!!" I can't think of a bad enough name for those people other than VICTIMS to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 December 17, 2006 QuoteI was under the impression that you had to purchase a lock for each gun. I think most responsible gun owners try to ensure their guns are stored safely. If a gun owner is "irresponsible" I doubt owning a trigger lock is going to change the manner in which the gun is stored. Just because a gun is stored unlocked, does not necessarily mean that the owner is "irresponsible". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 December 18, 2006 QuoteJust because a gun is stored unlocked, does not necessarily mean that the owner is "irresponsible". I wasn't trying to imply that at all. I was trying to say that if someone is an "irresponsible" gun owner, owning a trigger lock isn't going to magically transform that person into a responsible owner. I can think of many reasons to store a firearm unlocked. I can also think of many other situations where it would be preferable to have the gun locked up. It all depends on the individual situation.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 December 18, 2006 QuoteMost people appear to fall in one of two categories here: 1 - ZERO guns forever (unless you are a major actor/actress and lean left) 2 - It's none of my business what other people own Quote Where do you fall? sorry, #2. But the more I listen to the unreasonable fear of some people towards simple tools, I'd "prefer" that they not own something they are unable to use safely and respectfully. They are absolutely incapable of safe gun ownership and need to be cared for since they can't deal with simple things like personal responsibility vs fear of inanimate objects. It's a real testiment to the nanny state they typically condone. kind of a self fulfilling prophecy The problem is, they would "choose" not to own a gun and, therefore, they want to force others to make the same choice. But, it's based on irrational logic and faulty thinking I think it's infinitely more responsible to teach my daughter about safe gun use rather than eliminate guns from her life altogether. It would be very irresponsible to force her head in the sand on something so innocuous (once she has the right knowledge). But, we were raised around a lot of tools and exposed to many things in life. I like to think that variety of life experience is a good thing. Others, apparently have to keep it simple and tunnel vision ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #35 December 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust because a gun is stored unlocked, does not necessarily mean that the owner is "irresponsible". I wasn't trying to imply that at all. I was trying to say that if someone is an "irresponsible" gun owner, owning a trigger lock isn't going to magically transform that person into a responsible owner. I can think of many reasons to store a firearm unlocked. I can also think of many other situations where it would be preferable to have the gun locked up. It all depends on the individual situation. Agreed! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #36 December 19, 2006 QuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money. A great idea to try and prevent those types of sales, but a really bad way to try and stop it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money.Quote Excuse me but what you just stated is a serious offense already, does that stop anyone? Yes it will IF they are prosecuted for knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who is not legally allowed to posess a firearm. The police nearly always fail to go to the feds over gun related crimes...why you ask? It is because their political bosses refuse to address the issue at hand instead of using crime as a leverage tool against the law abiding citizen and their constitutional rights. Guten Morgen Mein Fuhrer Daley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #38 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money. Excuse me but what you just stated is a serious offense already, does that stop anyone? Excellent point. This is the nature of the evolution of ever-more gun laws, piled one on top of another. When the first ones don't achieve their purpose of preventing criminals from being criminals, then they pass yet more laws targeting the general public. And it's much easier to control the law-abiding, then it is to catch criminals. So the innocent end up being the victims of stupid laws, which always fail to stop the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #39 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. And the effect will be that when such straw purchases do occur from a dealer, they'll be spread out so no form 3310.4s will be on file with the BATF and the illegal sales will be less traceable and harder to prosecute than they are now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnRich 4 #35 December 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust because a gun is stored unlocked, does not necessarily mean that the owner is "irresponsible". I wasn't trying to imply that at all. I was trying to say that if someone is an "irresponsible" gun owner, owning a trigger lock isn't going to magically transform that person into a responsible owner. I can think of many reasons to store a firearm unlocked. I can also think of many other situations where it would be preferable to have the gun locked up. It all depends on the individual situation. Agreed! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #36 December 19, 2006 QuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money. A great idea to try and prevent those types of sales, but a really bad way to try and stop it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #37 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money.Quote Excuse me but what you just stated is a serious offense already, does that stop anyone? Yes it will IF they are prosecuted for knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who is not legally allowed to posess a firearm. The police nearly always fail to go to the feds over gun related crimes...why you ask? It is because their political bosses refuse to address the issue at hand instead of using crime as a leverage tool against the law abiding citizen and their constitutional rights. Guten Morgen Mein Fuhrer Daley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #38 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money. Excuse me but what you just stated is a serious offense already, does that stop anyone? Excellent point. This is the nature of the evolution of ever-more gun laws, piled one on top of another. When the first ones don't achieve their purpose of preventing criminals from being criminals, then they pass yet more laws targeting the general public. And it's much easier to control the law-abiding, then it is to catch criminals. So the innocent end up being the victims of stupid laws, which always fail to stop the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #39 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. And the effect will be that when such straw purchases do occur from a dealer, they'll be spread out so no form 3310.4s will be on file with the BATF and the illegal sales will be less traceable and harder to prosecute than they are now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnRich 4 #38 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. The idea is to limit the ability for me to be an agent and buy a bunch of guns to sell on the black market to make money. Excuse me but what you just stated is a serious offense already, does that stop anyone? Excellent point. This is the nature of the evolution of ever-more gun laws, piled one on top of another. When the first ones don't achieve their purpose of preventing criminals from being criminals, then they pass yet more laws targeting the general public. And it's much easier to control the law-abiding, then it is to catch criminals. So the innocent end up being the victims of stupid laws, which always fail to stop the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #39 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteONE GUN A MONTH? rationed to? Like, how many guns is any normal person buying per year anyhow? The goal was to prevent staw purchuses, where you buy a gun for me who can't legally. And the effect will be that when such straw purchases do occur from a dealer, they'll be spread out so no form 3310.4s will be on file with the BATF and the illegal sales will be less traceable and harder to prosecute than they are now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
