Looks like Ill wants to ban private gun sales...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Delta608, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Delta608 macrumors regular

    Delta608

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    #1
    HB 48 (96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY)
    (a-10) Any person who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm of a size that may be concealed upon the person to another person, who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, shall do so only at the place of business of a federally licensed firearm dealer.

    The provisions of this subsection (a-10) do not apply to:
    (1) transfers to the transferor's husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law;

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...=96&SpecSess=0


    There are currently 30 House Sponsors for this bill.




    What part of "Shall Not be Infringed" is so hard to understand...Do the citizens of Illinois have an endless supply of monies for all the civil suits...??
     
  2. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    I would imagine this would be to try to stop illegal gun sales that don't have a record of ownership. I doubt people will do background checks on private gun sales.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    That sounds like they are only requiring unlicensed sellers to make the transaction in the presence of a licensed firearms dealer. AFAIK, that is the same restriction I am under if I wish to order a firearm online.

    Furthermore, this appears to only affect handguns, not long guns.

    I fail to see how this even approaches a "ban" on private gun sales? :confused:
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    Doesn't sound like a ban to me. Just regulating it.
     
  6. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #6
    What part of "well-regulated militia" is so hard to understand?
     
  7. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    Snap.

    Good thinking though! :)
     
  8. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #8
    Here we go again, both posters do each of their arguments a disservice by only qouting part of the 2nd amend. Here it is in case you have forgotten:


    “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.”


    A few points if I may:

    1) The vast majority of gun owners already do transfers through a dealer. I am always adding to my gun collection, and once in a blue moon sell some of my collection so I can acquire something else. I always insist on a trasfer through a dealer, and I have never met anyone who has had an issue with that. Most of us are smart enough to know that if we sell a gun off the books that is registered to us via a yellow 4473 form, and that gun ever shows up involved in a crime we have some explaining to do.

    2) This is another law that is completely unenforceable. Anyone who is intent on acquiring a gun illegally, or "off the books" will still do so.


    3) Its possible that this may be an "attack" on gun shows,

    "shall do so only at the place of business of a federally licensed firearm dealer."
     
  9. Delta608 thread starter macrumors regular

    Delta608

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    #9
    Glad you asked

    "The Supreme Court held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia."


    I guess the so called "Fairness Doctrine" would go un-noticed for most of the posters on this forum as well...Careful, your MAC keyboard will be next...:D

    say la vee :apple:
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    I'm still not convinced that this is anything remotely close to what the OP billed it as -- an attempt by the Illinois state government to ban private gun sales.

    Rather than getting into the Second Amendment issues (which have been discussed to death around here -- do a search if you don't believe me), let's keep this on topic. Will this legislation ban all private gun sales, or is that just NRA spin on a much lesser issue? Looks to me like someone is trying to blow this out of proportion for partisan political purposes. "They're coming to take your guns!!!"
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    It's of little surprise to me that there's an inability for some gun owners to be unwilling/unable to detect the difference. The OP even posted paragraphs from legislation contrary to his own claim.....

    In light of this I propose some sort of critical reasoning test that must be passed before one is allowed to purchase a weapon. I'm guessing it would be the most effective "ban" on firearms sales.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    I agree. I don't see this as a ban either, just regulation.

    I'm a huge supporter of gun ownership rights as well.

    Thank you for that. I get tired of the silly claim that the second amendment only allows for gun ownership if one is in a "militia". Can you link that quote?
     
  13. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #13
    My point was not that one should necessarily be in a militia to own a gun, only that the second amendment clearly specifies that said militia (and, by implication, the weapons therein) should be well-regulated. It was also a bit tongue in cheek, as the OP was clearly being overly dramatic, quoting a snippet of the second amendment and claiming that a law regulating how one sells deadly weapons is somehow a total ban on gun sales and a direct attack on gun ownership. It is clearly neither.

    Now that we've totally killed that joke...

    I don't see huge problems with this. You want to sell a handgun? Do it through a dealer. Takes a huge burden off of the seller, as the dealer can handle background checks and filing paperwork. As has already been mentioned, it also means that if your ex-gun is involved in a crime, you are totally off the hook, as the sale was legit. Will it stop back-alley gun sales? Of course not. But it might provide some disincentive to purchase a weapon legitimately, then launder it through a sale for cash to someone who is intent on using it for criminal purposes. The law now has recourse against that original buyer.
     
  14. branjosef macrumors 6502a

    branjosef

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    1.222.333.456
    #14
    Its all because of Chicago. the one city has enough influence to dictate state policy. It also doesn't help that everyone in power seems to come from like 3 families. Daleys, Madigans, Jacksons, Strogers. Madigan rules the senate, his daughter is the States attorney and most likely the next governor. Jacksons are everywhere and in everything...and the latest now is that Mayor Daley's Brother might run for Obamas seat in 2010. When will these families go away.
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    Private sales through an FFL won't do anything to stop Bad Guys from acquiring handguns. We've tried that since GCA 1968, and it hasn't worked. So why bother? All it does is hassle honest people. Over and over, somebody hollers, "We gotta reduce gun crime!" Okay, so reducing crime is indeed a good thing, no argument. But this sort of nonsense won't do a damned bit of good.

    Anybody who doubts me need only read the rather exhaustive study by Wright/Rossi/Daly, "Under the Gun", U of Fla Press, 1985. The study was done post-GCA 1968, and a primary conclusion was that no law extant in the state of Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes with firearms. FWIW, these statisticians began their work as neutral to mildly anti- regarding firearms, as they explain in one of the appendices.

    My usual question: If a law or ordinance won't achieve its alleged goal, why pass it? If history shows us that such laws didn't work in the past, why would they work now?

    'Rat
     

Share This Page