Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
52. amazing, asked a simple question
Fri May 30, 2014, 09:08 PM
May 2014

and you refuse to answer. Several have pointed out some facts and all you can do now is just leave and say "Gunner taking points". Sometimes facts are just facts. You might be part of the problem as over the years firearms regulations have been steadily increased and in only a couple of states they have been loosened but you say unlimited gun ownership? I am sorry but that is just plain false.

Federal Register Notice—Publication Pending
- NICS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RIN 1110-AA27

Regulations
- Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide Index (pdf)
- National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulations (pdf)
- Firearm Appeal Certificate
- NICS Amendments, Federal Register, July 23, 2004
- Brady Implementation (pdf)
- Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of New System of Records (Proposed Rule)
- Exemption of System of Records Under the Privacy Act
- Temporary Rule: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (ATF) (Proposed Rule)
- Proposed rulemaking cross-referenced to Temporary Rule

Related Sites
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) | ATF Forms

Statutes
- Brady Law (P.L. 103-159, Title I; 107 Stat. 1536)
- 1968 Gun Control Act, as amended by Brady Law (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44)
- Prohibited categories (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1)-(9) and (n))
- Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9))


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I knew that for years gejohnston May 2014 #1
Interesting article. blueridge3210 May 2014 #2
God, there are crap toasters. I'll stick with proof marks. Eleanors38 May 2014 #3
Which controller group opposed grandfathering "extended" magazines... Eleanors38 May 2014 #4
VPC I'm guessing. blueridge3210 May 2014 #5
Actually that statement is correct. While there many regulations effecting guns, flamin lib May 2014 #6
Actually, no the statement is not correct. blueridge3210 May 2014 #7
Actually, yes that is correct. flamin lib May 2014 #8
The amount of lead in a bullet nykym May 2014 #9
And this has exactly what to do with the exemption of gun makers from flamin lib May 2014 #10
they are not gejohnston May 2014 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #11
not unture nykym May 2014 #14
"Gun makers cannot be sued for producing a defective, unsafe product." friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #17
Do the lawsuits mentioned in post #16 not exist in your universe? friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #18
Jumbo jets (aircraft) are also exempt from the CPSA petronius May 2014 #21
I stand by my original statement. blueridge3210 May 2014 #20
Not true- Remington has been sued many times over defective rifles friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #16
Yes I agree Remington has been sued nykym May 2014 #19
..thus demonstrating that flamin lib was wrong when they said: friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #22
if you read my post nykym May 2014 #24
You are correct, you and secmo are starting threads in the gungeon, Jenoch May 2014 #12
And I wear it with pride! nt flamin lib May 2014 #15
Maybe so. SecMo not so much. oneshooter May 2014 #23
I can't speak for SecMo but for me there are discussions I start but refuse to participate in. flamin lib May 2014 #25
"...endless red herrings, straw men and general nastiness." Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #26
That's rich. Straw Man May 2014 #27
It appears to be envy. blueridge3210 May 2014 #28
Why submit myself to abuse, name calling and any manner of logical fallacy... sarisataka May 2014 #31
We don't need more guns smart or otherwise. upaloopa May 2014 #29
I'm sorry, you are far too reasonable to post here . . . . nt flamin lib May 2014 #30
Nice words... sarisataka May 2014 #32
If gunners would show a willingness to upaloopa May 2014 #33
honest question gejohnston May 2014 #34
If persons on the pro-control side blueridge3210 May 2014 #35
The treatment of lumping all together upaloopa May 2014 #36
Good luck with that. blueridge3210 May 2014 #37
My observation is that people apply the 'lumping together' strategy when petronius May 2014 #43
What is this compromise? sarisataka May 2014 #38
Well you just pointed out the problem upaloopa May 2014 #39
Just occurred to you? Really? blueridge3210 May 2014 #40
Bingo sarisataka May 2014 #41
Well there has to be pain on both sides upaloopa May 2014 #42
Compromise is nobody is really happy sarisataka May 2014 #44
"No holds barred gun ownership". Jenoch May 2014 #45
Red states are making laws to remove power upaloopa May 2014 #46
I'm in a blue state and that is the law here. Jenoch May 2014 #47
Ok now I am feeling like I am talking to upaloopa May 2014 #48
How is it a talking point? blueridge3210 May 2014 #49
He made a ridiculous claim and could not back it up. Jenoch May 2014 #50
Look recognize you have an opinion based upaloopa May 2014 #51
Dude, it's a DISCUSSION board. blueridge3210 May 2014 #53
Stop trying to educate me ok? upaloopa May 2014 #54
I would beg to differ. blueridge3210 May 2014 #55
You are right, you don't need anymore education, you have your blinders on and don't need to see oneshooter May 2014 #56
amazing, asked a simple question Duckhunter935 May 2014 #52
Just curious... When, exactly, did the "right wing turn up the heat?" HALO141 May 2014 #57
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Some of the Gungeoneers w...»Reply #52