guns with serial numbers removed Legal?

[digitalcb]

<h1 class="text__text__1FZLe text__dark-grey__3Ml43 text__medium__1kbOh text__heading_2__1K_hh heading__base__2T28j heading__heading_2__3Fcw5">Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge</h1>

Google it
</p>

 

[Ga-Bullet]

Might Be But Don't See That Happening Long..

 

[FishingwithRusty]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!! the code/statute violated true law, The Constitution and was null from the beginning.

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

I own a gun and it's my responsibility to keep it locked up - law or no law. Too many shootings could have been avoided if gun owners followed that simple practice. Being near someone who is borrowing your gun also necessary if you can't be sure the individual is responsible and not imbalanced like the recent young murderers of people of all ages.</p>

Those selling guns to strangers are taking a big chance those guns won't be used irresponsibly or during a crime. There are no laws stipulating the sale of guns to individuals with mental health problems or criminal backgrounds and most likely will never be due to privacy laws.</p>

I don't know the solution to preventing massacres by wack jobs. Owning a gun wil not guarentee one's safty and using it in self defense - usually off the table in public places - opens one up to litigation regardless the circumstances. When was the last time you even heard of a perp being gunned down in self defense or in the defense of others by a non-law enforcement gun owner. I haven't. The law is writtin in stone that non-law enforcement individuals can not take the law into their own hands regardless how that action may have been justified to put down even a mass shooter.</p>

It's sickening to see innocent children slaughered in a school or in a playground much less the devestation to the parents and family members. No different than people murdered at a mall or in their homes. I just wish that when a perp is seen doing that, that the wack job is taken out by police. No arrest, no jury or lawyers to reduce the penalty to life from the death penalty. Police just also have to be careful the kill a good one or face charges themselves.</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[ChooChooSnakeMan]

SPOONMINNOW - 11/9/2022 7:03 AM



I own a gun and it's my responsibility to keep it locked up - law or no law. Too many shootings could have been avoided if gun owners followed that simple practice. Being near someone who is borrowing your gun also necessary if you can't be sure the individual is responsible and not imbalanced like the recent young murderers of people of all ages. </p>

 Those selling guns to strangers are taking a big chance those guns won't be used irresponsibly or during a crime. There are no laws stipulating the sale of guns to individuals with mental health problems or criminal backgrounds and most likely will never be due to privacy laws.</p>

I don't know the solution to preventing massacres by wack jobs. Owning a gun wil not guarentee one's safty and using it in self defense - usually off the table in public places - opens one up to litigation regardless the circumstances. When was the last time you even heard of a perp being gunned down in self defense or in the defense of others by a non-law enforcement gun owner. I haven't. The law is writtin in stone that non-law enforcement individuals can not take the law into their own hands regardless how that action may have been justified to put down even a mass shooter.</p>

 It's sickening to see innocent children slaughered in a school or in a playground much less the devestation to the parents and family members. No different than people murdered at a mall or in their homes. I just wish that when a perp is seen doing that, that the wack job is taken out by police. No arrest, no jury or lawyers to reduce the penalty to life from the death penalty. Police just also have to be careful  the kill a good one or face charges themselves.</p>

 </p>

 </p>

You bring up some interesting points. I'm not real sure which side of the gun ownership fence you are on from your post and you are 100% entitled to your opinions. I have to add my two cents here and perhaps this is a different perspective, maybe not.

I 100% agree that a gun owner has responsibilities to secure their firearms and not allow their firearms to be accessed by untrained or imbalanced individuals. As far as preventing massacres by whack jobs, recent international news shows that a deranged invidual can harm many people without a firearm. I disagree when you say that "owning a gun will not guarantee one's safety". I also believe that we should not be reluctant to use our Constitutionally protected personal firearm for self defense in a public place as long as it is legitimate self defense. Again it comes back to the person. Why should I put my right to bear arms on the shelf because there are lawyers running around who want to sue everyone? I think firearm usage in self defense should be thought of in terms of liability just as operating a motor vehicle. Driving a car comes with responsibilities and many people are injured or killed every year by careless motor vehicle operation. Do we have an outcry to ban cars? Well no, so why not!? The same crowd that thinks individuals don't have the brain power to safely own a firearm should be pushing to ban cars. If I operate my car in a reckless manner and injure or kill someone then I will be charged with a crime and I will face the consequences. It should be no different with careless firearm handling. My last point and main point is this. Do you not realize what the average response time is for a police officer? They do a great job, they put their lives on the line for the public every day they go out on patrol. However if me or my family or maybe you and your family face a whack job at a mall or other public place by the time the police arrive it will only be to draw a chalk line around our dead bodies and write a report probably 95% of the time or more. I will not turn over the protection and safety of myself, my family, or innocent bystanders to our government. I am the first line of responsbility for me and mine and maybe you and yours. The left has demonized firearms as if it is the guns that force these deranged individuals to commit their heinous acts. It ain't the guns, it's the people. That brings me to my last point, you may or may not agree but it is my opinion. The problem is the breakdown in our society, in our families. Think about it. In times not so long ago guns were plentiful, heck a lot of rural kids went to high school with a shotgun or deer rifle in the car. People weren't shooting each other over nothing back then like today. What changed. First our society decided that we didn't need God anymore. They kicked God and Godly principals out of our schools, out of our government. You may say that well I don't believe in God and that is your choice. I don't think that America should force anyone to have any particular faith or even faith at all but in the past even people who didn't identify as people of faith were influenced by the social norms of the day. Second our society descended into a cease pool of violence and sexual immorality. We allowed our entertainment outlets to feed us and our kids a constant stream of bood and gore violence, we allowed our public schools to be infiltrated with people who don't love the traditional American way. Because of the darkness and hopelessness that our society has become for so many, especially young adults we have what we have. These people are in some cases confused and hurting because what our society offers will not satisfy. There are also those few individuals who are truly evil. They hate you, me, and everybody, they hate America. They have turned their souls over to darkness and their goal is to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. You see we have some generations coming along that have no role models that are upright and respectible. They feel hopeless and eventually some of them act out on it. Many would say because of a small minority that everyone should lose their right to bear firearms and protect themselves. I say that is garbage. If all the law abiding people turned in our guns do you think the criminals will? The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn't obey the law! America has a lot of problems, banning firearms will not help in my opinion. We need to get back to what made America great. Hard work, tight family structure, a value of decency and moralilty.

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

Correct me, but many of the guns used in crimes are sold w/o proper background checks or from the black market. Even background checks can be false and misleading even if the person has had a violent history not reported to the authorities.</p>

</p>

Also, regarding muggings and mass murders using guns I wonder whether they could have been reduced in number nationally. I don't know the answer and feel bad for the victims and their families. Home invasion - no problem protecting oneself and others. If I saw someone carrying a gun on my property around the house, one loud warning would be broadcast a mile and then I would take it from there fully loaded. But what are the chances of any of that happening?!!!</p>

Forget carrying a sidearm in public. Maybe a slingshot but not a colt 45. Cops don't have the time to investigate reports of armed characters that seemed dangerous to someone.</p>

</p>

Can armed security guards at malls shoot someone that they saw fire a gun whether into the air or at someone? Again, what are the chances of that scenario? Would a guard risk a legal fallback if someone was injured in a crossfire from his/her weapon? Legalities will always make things very complicated.</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[FishingwithRusty]

SPOONMINNOW - 12/8/2022 1:58 PM



Correct me, but many of the guns used in crimes are sold w/o proper background checks or from the black market. Even background checks can be false and misleading even if the person has had a violent history not reported to the authorities.</p>

 </p>

Also, regarding muggings and mass murders using guns I wonder whether they could have been reduced in number nationally. I don't know the answer and feel bad for the victims and their families. Home invasion - no problem protecting oneself and others. If I saw someone carrying a gun on my property around the house, one loud warning would be broadcast a mile and  then I would take it from there fully loaded. But what are the chances of any of that happening?!!!</p>

 Forget carrying a sidearm in public. Maybe a slingshot but not a colt 45. Cops don't have the time to investigate reports of armed characters that seemed dangerous to someone.</p>

 </p>

Can armed security guards at malls shoot someone that they saw fire a gun whether into the air or at someone? Again, what are the chances of that scenario? Would a guard risk a legal fallback if someone was injured in a crossfire from his/her weapon? Legalities will always make things very complicated.</p>

 </p>

 </p>

absolutely DISAGREE with you!!!! YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY!!!! absolutely carry your firearm and be prepapred to defend yourself and your property WHEREVER you may be. relying on leo to save you is NOT a good policy.

and of course you dont hear about good folks using thier own weapons to stop crime, its goes against the agenda but it happens EVERYDAY!!!!

you know how you stop mass shooters.....by shooting back!!!

 

[WaterChap]

A large amount of recent mass shooters were either known or reported to police as dangerous or able to buy a firearm because a government agent failed to report mandatory info. When we add to that individuals who unlawfully attempt to buy firearms are basically never prosecuted even when background checks are denied, I very much wonder what would happen if we simply enforced existing laws? Let’s not forget that the worst school shooting in years (ever?) took place with the local police refusing to go in, physically restraining people from going in to save their kids and only ended when a rogue law enforcement officer defied the authorities and borrowed a firearm and went in. After EIGHTY MINUTES of free range killing of children.

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

It's one thing to be able to shoot accurately and know when and who to shoot much less take a life - any life. It's bad enough having a minority of police not well trained or suited to violent confrontations, but how many gun owners have been certified to shoot in public areas? I'll bet not many. If you look at it from your own perspective, it all seems simple: from sighting the suspect holding a gun to taking him/her out. But what if you are disarmed and your gun is used in a killing? How would you feel if a bystander was killed by accident by you gun? What do you think a suspect does after he sees you with a gun - invite you to lunch?! You become the immediate target. How does a handgun stand up to an automatic or semi-automatic with backup clips ready to go? Your six-shot pistol isn't going to cut it once he knows you're fumbling to reload. Scenarios matter!!!! Most gun owners shoot animals or stationary targets - not criminals bent on getting what they want by force. What do you thing police do when they hear shots fired but not by who. Ya think they'll always take the time to tell you to get on the ground after seeing you fire your gun? Remember, the bad guy is most likely hidden laughing at the scene as it plays out with you screaming "I'm not the bad guy - he is!" </p>

Too many things can go wrong and the average gun owner is not trained to do the right thing nor have the ability to react quickly and in the right manner. </p>

 

[Aries 181]

Firearms made before 1968 were not required to have a serial number and could be sent straight to your home w/o using an FFL.

Bill

 

[ChooChooSnakeMan]

SPOONMINNOW - 12/11/2022 10:46 AM



It's one thing to be able to shoot accurately and know when and who to shoot much less take a life - any life. It's bad enough having a minority of police not well trained or suited to violent confrontations, but how many gun owners have been certified to shoot in public areas? I'll bet not many. If you look at it from your own perspective, it all seems simple: from sighting the suspect holding a gun to taking him/her out. But what if you are disarmed and your gun is used in a killing? How would you feel if a bystander was killed by accident by you gun? What do you think a suspect does after he sees you with a gun - invite you to lunch?! You become the immediate target. How does a handgun stand up to an automatic or semi-automatic with backup clips ready to go? Your six-shot pistol isn't going to cut it once he knows you're fumbling to reload. Scenarios matter!!!! Most gun owners shoot animals or stationary targets - not criminals bent on getting what they want by force. What do you thing police do when they hear shots fired but not by who. Ya think they'll always take the time to tell you to get on the ground after seeing you fire your gun? Remember, the bad guy is most likely hidden laughing at the scene as it plays out with you screaming "I'm not the bad guy - he is!" </p>

Too many things can go wrong and the average gun owner is not trained to do the right thing nor have the ability to react quickly and in the right manner. </p>

Ok, so let's cut to the chase so to speak. State clearly what you think is the right actions that need to be taken. If you were in charge what would you do given the current situation which includes hundreds of millions of guns, our violence obbsessed society, not uniform training across any group of gun owners / users including law enforcement? I am sincere in asking you for your ideas. I don't think very many people on either side of this issue will deny that there is a problem. What is open for debate is what caused the problems (not to cast blame but you have to understand causes to understand the cures) and what will actually make a difference going forward. Thanks

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

</p>

Limiting gun ownership is NOT the answer; making sure gun owners understand their responsibility as gun owners is at least a start. I'm sure you abide by strict protocols as a gun owner. Will random killing or other gun-related crimes ever be eradicated? Society has determined that it won't be any time soon. Here are a few examples why: Violent parents are outside anyone's control which may lead to a. bullying and b., homicidal behavior later on. Violence in the media rubs off on some individuals - also not controllable per our constitution. We agree (I think) that neither of us wants a loved one accidentally killed by some do-gooder with a handgun. So, before any potential gun owner buys his first gun, two things should happen: </p>

1. a mandatory course in high school showing the damage bullets can do to the flesh; statistics that demonstrate how many are killed by firearms every year by accident or on purpose;. the consequences - prison - for killing someone either on purpose or even by accident and no different than the penalties for drunk driving accidents.</p>

2. a course taken before gun possession similar to driver safety that outlines the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring protocols dictated by law, gun safety and common sense. Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be offered payment to give such mandatory courses. </p>

3. a national or state database is no place to determine those who are crazy, potential violent criminals or prone to being careless owning a firearm (i.e.drunkenness) nor will it be available that is predictive or preventive. Even when law enforcement is notified, long delays cost lives. For these things I have no solutions especially when the average citizen doesn't get involved making sure 1. and 2. are implemented.</p>

Out and out vigilante justice makes many such as myself uncomfortable and the law is against those who use it, is quite clear regardless of any good that may come or lives saved. The courts and lawyers are big question marks after a vigilante takes a life - any life. Reality is what it is, fair or not.</p>

</p>

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

Couldn't edit without the fromat changing so here's another legal consequence of killing resuting from using a fireare:
1. first time - 25 year min. sentence with NO parolde
2. 2nd time - Capital Punishment - no exception or comuting to life. A life for a life.

The above are not meant to be preventative though maybe it could in come cases especially if emphasized in high school by showing exzmples.

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

The above centers on ABSOLUTE PROOF of an intentional homicide.

 

[ChooChooSnakeMan]

SPOONMINNOW - 12/11/2022 11:32 PM



 </p>

Limiting gun ownership is NOT the answer; making sure gun owners understand their responsibility as gun owners is at least a start. I'm sure you abide by strict protocols as a gun owner. Will random killing or other gun-related crimes ever be eradicated? Society has determined that it won't be any time soon. Here are a few examples why: Violent parents are outside anyone's control which may lead to a. bullying and b., homicidal behavior later on. Violence in the media rubs off on some individuals - also not controllable per our constitution. We agree (I think) that neither of us wants a loved one accidentally killed by some do-gooder with a handgun. So, before any potential gun owner buys his first gun, two things should happen: </p>

1. a mandatory course in high school showing the damage bullets can do to the flesh; statistics that demonstrate how many are killed by firearms every year by accident or on purpose;. the consequences - prison - for killing someone either on purpose or even by accident and no different than the penalties for drunk driving accidents.</p>

2. a course taken before gun possession similar to driver safety that outlines the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring protocols dictated by law, gun safety and common sense. Responsible gun owners such as yourself should be offered payment to give such mandatory courses. </p>

3. a national or state database is no place to determine those who are crazy, potential violent criminals or prone to being careless owning a firearm (i.e.drunkenness) nor will it be available that is predictive or preventive. Even when law enforcement is notified, long delays cost lives. For these things I have no solutions especially when the average citizen doesn't get involved making sure 1. and 2. are implemented.</p>

 Out and out vigilante justice makes many such as myself uncomfortable and the law is against those who use it, is quite clear regardless of any good that may come or lives saved. The courts and lawyers are big question marks after a vigilante takes a life - any life. Reality is what it is, fair or not.</p>

 </p>

I appreciate you taking the time to really think out and give us your ideas / response. I am glad to see that you do not believe in banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. There are certainly many problems and I will be the first to admit that I don't have the answers although I firmly believe the root cause of our problems with violence in general is the decay of our society. Being a man of faith I see first hand how people now choose to be their own "God", make their own rules, and they believe they answer to no one. It is frustrating to see a certain segment of our society demonize firearms and totally ignore personal responsibility. Statistics are twisted if not outright made up to support their arguments. I agree that education is important and would like to see our young people educated in safe firearm training. That would make our nation stronger and in fact promote not only safe gun ownership and use but also the shooting sports. How to go about that and who should do the training is subject for debate but the need is there. One thing that I believe any unbiased person will have to accept is that banning guns is actually counterproductive. The cities with the strongest bans on private gun ownership have the highest gun violence because as I mentioned earlier, criminals don't obey the laws. To ban guns from law abiding citizens just makes things easier for the criminals to prey on people. It is also a known fact that our local law enforcement agencies do not have the resources nor can they have the resources to be everywhere at all times. I also want to mention that in some areas of our nation local law enforcement agencies have become tools of gun banning groups with political agendas by enacting ridiculous rules and regulations that while not banning guns have that effect. Politicians cannot be trusted, that is why our founding fathers did not want citizens to be disarmed. God Bless you, I pray for you and your loved ones safety. It is for sure a dangerous world and sadly it seems to be getting more dangerous as it gets more deranged and evil.

 

[FishingwithRusty]

after reading the above, 3 things:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

personal responsibility is a good thing.

prepare to self rescue

 

[Aries 181]

I'll just leave this here. Yes, some people ARE this stupid!

Bill

 

[SPOONMINNOW]

What an idiot. I wonder how many illegal guns cross our borders and who buys them. Penalties for both seller and buyer should be severe and mandatory - no exceptions/ no early parole. I have no problem with legal ownership and responsible gun owners or with anyone killing an armed intruder with no warning whatsoever. Could even be a kitchen knife, makes no difference. Brandish a weapon, you take your chances.

Now, would I go to a neighbor's house armed if I saw an intruder? Sorry, unless it's a close family member or best friend, doubtful same for carrying in public. Carrying in public is asking for trouble of some kind and is frowned on by police. All someone has to yell is, he's gotta gun! and panic results, guns drawn.

Ownership has its positives but also many negatives that must be addressed by all gun owners. Screaming - they're going to take our guns away! - doesn't help put gun ownership in a positive light, especially from a collector or hunter's point of view. But at the same time, irresponsible gun ownership resulting in harm or threat of death must be taken seriously or the privilege could have its days numbered.