!!

Hello, Guest!

You are viewing the GunLink forums as a guest.  CLICK HERE to register for the forums and unlock more features, hidden forums and the ability post in topics, vote in polls, see poll results and more.

Chief Supply Corp. 120x60 logo

Author Topic: gun control time? Red flag laws? Universal background checks? Pistol brace ban?  (Read 364 times)

Offline rutlege

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
After Gilroy garlic festival and El Paso walmart and Dayton bar I think something's going to happen on gun laws. Maybe that's the whole point. At least one of those shooters said that they wanted to be like the Christchurch NZ shooter that said he wanted to spark gun control and confiscation in the US and hopefully start a civil war. El Paso shooter said he was anti big corporation, pro universal basic income, and big on climate change basically the dem platform and the Dayton shooter was a antifa guy and big Elizabeth Warren supporter. Yet it's evil racist republicans fault and must ban guns. I think at least red flag laws are coming and maybe magazine laws and pistol braces get banned. I don't think they can get a AWB yet unless they get a dem in the white house.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 08:37:40 AM by rutlege »

GunLink Discussion Forums


Log in or register to disable this ad

Offline go4

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2019, 05:33:55 PM »
Maybe NRA will suggest that Trump “take a look at them” like they did with bump stocks and he’ll look at them right into a ban.

Offline rutlege

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2019, 12:20:11 PM »
Dont know about NRA but a lot of people i didn't expect are getting behind it like Dan Crenshaw, repub governors and congress and FOX news shows. Saw facebook post today from a 2A account that said he thought red flag laws and universal bg checks would be what happens. If red flag laws pass watch how many people get SWATted. If the youtubers thought that getting demonotized or deplatformed was bad just wait until they get the knock for a welfare check after someone reports them because they think their dangerous. If you can't trust NRA to fight it then who?

Offline masfonos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Karma: 9
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2019, 05:56:03 PM »
I see the RFL as more likely.  The narrative is already moving that way after Parkland and El Paso and Dayton.

Parkland murderer was a real POS and everyone from police to school admins to students and everyone else knew it but couldn’t do anything about him because of the deal the school and sheriff office had under the previous White House admin.

El Paso guy’s mom called the cops on him to figure out why/if he was allowed to get his weapon.

Dayton guy had a list of girls to rape (and skin???) and a list of guys to kill that he thought were “a threat.”  Classmates said they figured he would have shot up the school a lot sooner.

I wonder if any of them had fathers that bothered to be involved and knock the soy boy idiot behavior out of these losers. Or if they just let the meds and Fortnight babysit them.

Offline noobgunner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2019, 03:11:22 PM »
Everything today is about background checks. "universal" and "meaningful" background checks. What am I missing? There's already background checks on buying guns. What's the problem expanding them to private gun show sales or making them more thorough?

Offline rutlege

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2019, 03:21:24 PM »
Hey, how else are they going to confiscate guns? Background checks are done by licensed sellers. They want to lump any and every other way of getting a gun in the same category as stealing it or straw purchase or other actual illegal ways. Drip drip drip.

Offline masfonos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Karma: 9
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2019, 02:48:14 PM »
"What's the problem expanding them to private gun show sales or making them more thorough?"

There are a lot of problems. One is that the current system of background checks is nothing more than a registry. It's a big, ugly, slow, cumbersome, analog registry, but it's still a registry. If the question you're asking is "is this person allowed to purchase/own a firearm?" then why record the make/model/serial number/caliber/etc? A 4473 on every single transfer is nothing more than a way to ensure a complete registry. There are plenty of reasons why a registry is bad, but the simplest is "it's none of their damn business." The second is that they want a check/4473 on every transfer and they want to play games with what a "transfer" is. Any time you hand a firearm to someone is a transfer and when they hand it back to you it's another transfer.

All of that ignores the giant, obvious, glaring fact that CRIMINALS AREN'T GOING TO BE TAKING THE BACKGROUND CHECK ANYWAY!!!! It's already illegal to steal a gun, buy a hot gun on the black market, have a "clean" person buy you a gun if you're prohibited, etc. That's how criminals already get their guns (illegally) and that's how they'll continue to get their guns (illegally).






I don't like the current system but it's what we have to deal with. I'm definitely not OK with that system being expanded. I think that the current system needs overhauled and then, MAYBE, discuss applying it to all SALES. But first it has to be a background check system and not a backdoor registry.

It should be available to anyone. It should be an actual instant system. It should accept as input only the information needed to identify the person undergoing the check. It should return only two things: 1) one of two answers: prohibited or proceed and 2) a secure hash of time of the check, result, and ID of the person checked that can be recorded by the buyer and seller. It should not store any information about any of the checks or identity of those being checked (the returned hash can be used for non-repudiation / proof that the check was run). The system should be externally audited to make sure that all of the above are met, especially that no data is being stored.

Better yet, if someone is so terrible that they can't be trusted with some object then don't let them out into society. Viola. No more background checks needed at all.

Offline JamesCollins

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2019, 12:30:54 PM »
"What's the problem expanding them to private gun show sales or making them more thorough?"

There are a lot of problems. One is that the current system of background checks is nothing more than a registry. It's a big, ugly, slow, cumbersome, analog registry, but it's still a registry. If the question you're asking is "is this person allowed to purchase/own a firearm?" then why record the make/model/serial number/caliber/etc? A 4473 on every single transfer is nothing more than a way to ensure a complete registry. There are plenty of reasons why a registry is bad, but the simplest is "it's none of their damn business." The second is that they want a check/4473 on every transfer and they want to play games with what a "transfer" is. Any time you hand a firearm to someone is a transfer and when they hand it back to you it's another transfer.

All of that ignores the giant, obvious, glaring fact that CRIMINALS AREN'T GOING TO BE TAKING THE BACKGROUND CHECK ANYWAY!!!! It's already illegal to steal a gun, buy a hot gun on the black market, have a "clean" person buy you a gun if you're prohibited, etc. That's how criminals already get their guns (illegally) and that's how they'll continue to get their guns (illegally).






I don't like the current system but it's what we have to deal with. I'm definitely not OK with that system being expanded. I think that the current system needs overhauled and then, MAYBE, discuss applying it to all SALES. But first it has to be a background check system and not a backdoor registry.

It should be available to anyone. It should be an actual instant system. It should accept as input only the information needed to identify the person undergoing the check. It should return only two things: 1) one of two answers: prohibited or proceed and 2) a secure hash of time of the check, result, and ID of the person checked that can be recorded by the buyer and seller. It should not store any information about any of the checks or identity of those being checked (the returned hash can be used for non-repudiation / proof that the check was run). The system should be externally audited to make sure that all of the above are met, especially that no data is being stored.

Better yet, if someone is so terrible that they can't be trusted with some object then don't let them out into society. Viola. No more background checks needed at all.

The man power needed to crack down on any of this is impossible. There are no solutions when there are not the resources to execute a plan.

Offline masfonos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Karma: 9
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2019, 12:07:54 PM »
Wow, I didn't know how long my post was until I saw it quoted.  :o

I don't think they care about cracking down on anything, or actually enforcing it, or it even being effective at reducing crime, which it wouldn't do anyway. They just don't want regular plebes having guns plain and simple.

They make one or two busts and make an example out of them, bankrupt the people with huge fines, throw them in the slammer for a couple decades, and feed the story to the news to make it high profile. Everyone else toes the line so they don't end up the same way. Hardly any manpower needed for that. Compliance out of fear, same as NFA. Meanwhile, criminals are still getting their guns illegally and still committing crimes.

Offline LivingDeadGirl

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 772
  • Karma: 1
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2019, 12:36:00 PM »
I’m more concerned with “who” gets to determine if someone is a threat.

Medical professionals? - aren’t medical records supposed to be confidential unless you’re an actual threat to yourself or others? But if red flag laws pass, are they going to loosen this standard?

The police? Neighbors? Family?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline rutlege

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: gun control time?
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2019, 12:46:47 PM »
Thats just details. The sheriff will say your dangerous or the police will take them under orders from the 1,000 Mayors Against Illegal Guns and by the time they figure out they shouldn't have taken them good luck getting them back. If they aren't already lost or destroyed, they'll be rusted shut or behind three years of paperwork to get them back. And then another background check and surprise, you're denied because of your red flag history.

Offline rutlege

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Florida man has guns confiscated under red flag law - IT'S THE WRONG GUY!
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2019, 08:35:57 AM »
Red Flag Laws Gone Wrong! Cops in FL confiscate a man's firearms because there was an ERPO for someone else with the same name. Instead of due process or bothering to correctly ID him they just take his concealed permit and his guns and leave him to deal with it in court. If I was him I would find a lawyer and sue everyone from the landlord to the sheriff to the deputies to the agriculture department to the governor to the Carpenter they were supposed to get to the clerk of courts.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/florida-man-has-firearms-rights-taken-away-over-mistaken-identity/

Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity

The postal carrier had Carpenter signed for a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Carpenter signed for it, but he was confused because he was not expecting anything from the state. He quickly opened it and was floored.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren't any actions against him.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court's office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff's office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.


The man in question is 5'8. Carpenter is 5'11. The alleged drug dealer is 110lbs. Carpenter is over 200. The man has black hair. Carpenter is completely bald. Last but not least, the man in question is covered in tattoos, and Carpenter only has a few.

It was apparent that the police had the wrong man, but Carpenter was in for his biggest shock yet. The Sherriff’s office told Carpenter he had to surrender his guns. Carpenter never even had as much as a hearing, yet he was losing his rights.

“The last thing on my mind was me having to turn over my gun,” Carpenter told AmmoLand. “I was upset when the Sheriff told me that I need to surrender my gun before any due process.”

He would not be able to get them back until he goes to court so the women can verify to the judge that they have the wrong Jonathan Carpenter. He would have to petition the court for the return of his firearms. An added expense that Carpenter would have to cover himself!

A police officer I spoke to off the record thinks that the courts ran a check for a Jonathan Edward Carpenter with a concealed carry permit. Although he could not tell me for sure, he thinks that is what happened in this particular case. He did say that this is a common practice.

When I pressed the officer of the likelihood of a drug dealer obeying Florida gun laws and getting a concealed handgun permit, he agreed that it probably isn't likely. He then stated that police and courts do make mistakes all the time, but he insisted that it is better to make mistakes than not do anything. Many disagree with that point.

For many, this is an example of how the system is broken. Second Amendment advocates worry with the expansion of extreme risk protection orders these situations will become more prevalent. Currently, 17 states have these red flag laws on the books.
Florida passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018. This is Florida’s version of a red flag law. Although this isn’t technically a risk protection order, many think cases like this highlight how red flag laws can be misused to disarm innocent people.

For Carpenter, he has to wait until August 27th for his day in court to start the process of getting his firearms rights back. To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away. He is currently seeking legal counsel.