ok, people...

I consider myself a reasonable person. I have a good job I've been going to every day for the last 7 years. I have 3 kids and a wonderful wife. I live in a great community with nice neighbors.

Now, for the first time, I'm actually considering buying a gun illegally. Why? Because now when we purchase weapons, our names, address and weapons purchased will all be in the national gun registry.

Why on earth would I want tell the government these things?

We're one step away from some really ugly shit.

-- don't ask (I'llnever@tell.com), May 21, 1999

Answers

Right on.

And I am not afraid to sign with my e-mail address.

-- Rickjohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

Purchasing a gun from an individual through a newspaper classified ad is not bound by any federally regulated record keeping, and is still legal in most states as far as I'm aware. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that type of purchase is still a private matter, requiring no FFL to conduct the transaction.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

hiway,so does that mean we can casche a gun,and the tell the man when he comes for my iron that I just sold it to "this guy"?and that's legal?that sounds like a texas thing(but I like it!)

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

You're assuming that anybody is going to be stupid enough to actually advertise in a newspaper that they have a weapon for sale.

We all to need to open our eyes.

-- don't ask (I'llnever@tell.com), May 21, 1999.

I know how you feel, I use to feel the same way. I recently applied for my concealed handgun license in Texas. Talk about the gub-mint knowing you have a gun! The time is not yet when we have to really be afraid of the gub-mint coming after our guns. Now is the time when all folks who WANT a gun ought to buy one legally. Let the gub-mint know, so what? There is power in numbers, remember that. When the day comes that the UN does come for our guns, do you really think they will leave your house alone because there is no record? On that day, do what you have to do. They are not fools, they know there will be one hell of a fight.

-- Buffalo Bob (buff@hal.com), May 21, 1999.

As a matter of fact, the newspapers and other advertising vehicles, such as the Thrifty Nickel, are full of ads for guns. I am in Texas, but I'd venture there are gun ads in newspapers all over the country. And it's certainly not illegal to buy a gun from another private citizen. Only way to go, don't ask.

-- Vic (Rdrunneris@compliant.com), May 21, 1999.

Congressional Record-House of Representatives May 15, 1989 (Extension of Remarks) Hon. Bill Richardson

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, in the past months the issue of semi-automatic weapon ownership and gun ownership have come under very close, if not prejudiced, scrutiny. The Congress, having been inundated with information of varying degrees of accuracy, should take note of testimony delivered before the Senate judiciary committee's subcommittee on the Constitution. The testimony of David B. Kopel offers unique insight into the issues of gun owernship and the proposed banning of semi-automatic weapons. I commend this very informative testimony to my colleagues for their review. Despite a string of arrests for offenses including robbery, illegal weapons sales, and assault on a police officer, Stockton murderer Patrick Purdy was never imprisoned for more than a few weeks--even after a mental health report warned that Purdy was `a danger to himself and others.' Covering the tracks of failure, California's authorities have sealed Purdy's criminal and mental health records. We urge that the coverup be ended and the records be opened, as the first step in a critical reexamination of the serious flaws of the California and national justice systems.

Purdy's criminal record demonstrated that he already knew how to buy illegal guns. Despite California's strict 15-day waiting period, he bought 5 handguns there. The only control that could have stopped Purdy from finding and using an illegal gun was prison. The tragedy in Stockton must spur the Nation into a hard look at our social control systems which are not controlling criminals. In particular, our underfunded police, prosecutorial, prison, and mental health systems need more resources.

The second amendment does not protect a right to own guns for hunting. It does guarantee an individual's right to own guns for personal defense. With the increasing prevalence of gang violence, citizens need reliable guns with quick-firing capacity.

`A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,' the second amendment guarantees all members of the militia--all adults--the right to own militia, military-type weapons for national defense. The civilian militia was most recently called to duty in World War II by the Governors of Hawaii, Virginia, and Maryland.

Criminals will easily evade any restrictions on semi-automatic firearms, just as they currently evade restrictions on handguns.

Restrictions or bans on semi-automatics will lead to disrespect for the law, because so many otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to obey laws against semi-automatics.

Careful analysis of laws against `assault weapons' shows that they can be used to ban most pistols and long guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns. [Page: E1677]

[The following is a short excerpt from the written testimony presented to the Senate. Space limitations prevent printing the full analysis of all topics mentioned above in the abstract.]

This testimony is offered collectively by four law enforcement professionals, to urge that Congress take a careful, rational look at the highly charged issue of self-loading firearms. We are: Chief Gerald Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police; Deputy Sheriff Dennis Ray Martin, national president of the American Federation of Police; retired officer Stephen P. D'Andrilli, a 15-year decorated veteran of the New York City Police Department, currently president of Guardian Group International Corp., a security consulting firm; and David B. Kopel, formerly an Assistant District Attorney in New York City, currently a policy analyst for Guardian Group. [Organizations listed for identification only; we believe it improper for law enforcement executives to claim to speak on behalf of their rank and file without even consulting the rank and file.]

Too much of the debate on self-loading firearms concerns the irrelevant issue of sporting use. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to hunt, or to bowl or to hang glide. Self-loading firearms are often used for hunting or target shooting, but that is not why they deserve Constitutional protection. They deserve protection because they are militia guns--because they are made for personal and national defense.

As law enforcement officers, we have sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the provision which guarantees, in the words of Massachusetts Revolutionary War patriot Josiah Quincy, `a well-regulated militia composed of the freeholder, citizen and husbandman, who take up their arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen.'

As Josiah Quincy's words highlight, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to armed self-defense. That guarantee remains valid today; a vote of the National Association of Chiefs of Police showed that 84% believe the inability of the police to protect all persons at all times justifies the civilian ownership of firearms.

Self-loading firearms are often essential for self-defense. For example, pleasure boat owners in the Gulf Coast have been stocking up on Uzis. Why? Because drug smugglers commonly pull alongside pleasure boats, murder all the passengers, use the boat to transport a load of drugs to the mainland, and then abandon the boat. The drug runner do their killing with high-powered guns stolen from the military, or bought on the same international black market that supplies cocaine by the pound.

Boat owners who hope to survive an encounter with the smugglers must arm themselves with highly reliable weapons capable of firing at several attackers in quick succession.

Anyone who reasonably fears attack by a gang--such as a store-owner in the middle of a Miami riot--could reasonably conclude that the reliability and rapid-fire capability of an Uzi or an AR-15 is the only effective way to protect his or her family from murder.

As the Supreme Court declared in U.S. v. Miller (1939), guns that are useful for the militia or for militia training are the only ones that are protected by the Constitution. Thus, it is precisely the Kalashnikovs, Uzis, AR-15s, M-14s and other civilian versions of military guns that are most clearly secured by the right to bear arms.

The Miller Court echoed the founders' clear understanding of the militia: `all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ... expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.' The modern United States Code follows the Constitutionally-mandated definition, making subject to militia duty all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

Arguments that the militia is obsolete fail to consider contemporary history.

Not long ago the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, driven out by a popular guerrilla army. The mujahedeen made effective use of, among other weapons, AK-47s which they captured from the Soviets, received from the Chinese, or constructed themselves with simple tools. While American Stinger missiles helped devastate the Soviet airforce, the missiles did not arrive until 1986, by which time the guerrillas had fought the mightiest army in world history to a draw for seven years.

During World War II, the Japanese seized several Alaskan islands, and strategists feared more Axis landings. Hawaii's governor summoned armed citizens to man checkpoints and patrol remote beach areas. The Governor of Maryland called on `the Maryland Minute Men,' including `members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting Clubs and similar organizations,' for `repelling invasion forays, parachute raids, and sabotage uprisings,' as well as for patrolling beaches, water supplies, and railroads. Over 15,000 volunteers brought their own weapons to duty. Gun owners in Virginia were also mustered into home service. Americans everywhere armed themselves in case of invasion.

After the National Guard was federalized for overseas duty, the `militia proved a successful substitute for the National Guard,' according to a Defense Department study. Militiamen, providing their own guns, were trained in patrolling, roadblock techniques, and guerrilla warfare.

It has been more than 40 years since the last invading troops left American soil. No invasion is plausible in the foreseeable future. But Constitutional rights are for all time. Only the most naive believer in American omnipotence or the nuclear umbrella can feel certain that America will never again need the militia.

Further, as the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey explained, domestic dictatorship will aways be a threat: `The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.'

A few weeks ago in the Soviet state of Georgia, the Gorbachev regime confirmed how useful firearms are to freedom-loving people. After ethnic unrest and demands for autonomy, the Communist government used registration lists to confiscate all hunting rifles.

As law enforcement professionals, we have seen that restrictions on lawful gun ownership have no impact on criminal access to guns. The supply of self-loading weapons in the United States is already more than sufficient to supply the criminal market for stolen guns.

Moreover, a competent backyard mechanic can build even a fully automatic rifle. Indeed, Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalogue, have built fully automatic rifles capable of firing the Soviet AK-47 cartridge. Illegal home production of handguns is already common; a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C. were homemade.

The day that semi-automatics become illegal, organized crime will swiftly supply the criminal market with mass-produced illegal guns. Tulane Professor James Wright, author of the National Institute of Justice study of criminal gun use, argues that gun controls are less likely to reduce the pool of criminal guns than to provide organized crime with lucrative new business.

In 1986, the National Association of Chiefs of Police surveyed every major police official in the country: 97 percent believed that a firearms ownership ban would not reduce crime or keep criminals from using guns; 89 percent believed that gun control laws such as those in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City had no effect on criminals; and 90 percent believed that if firearms ownership was banned, ordinary citizens would be more likely to be targets of armed violence.

Even the most severe controls on honest citizens do not stop criminals. Since 1934, anyone who wishes to buy a fully automatic weapon, such as the Thompson Submachine gun, must pass a rigorous licensing process that requires a federal fingerprint check, an F.B.I. background investigation, a letter of permission from the local police chief, a wait of up to six months, and hundreds of dollars in fees and taxes. The system works marvelously; no licensed autmoatic has ever been used in a crime.

And the system does not work at all. Automatic weapons, including the hundreds of thousands of guns missing from U.S. military arsenals, are readily obtainable, even by teenage gang members. A system that cannot control full autos will not work any better on semi-autos.

In Chicago, Washington, and New York City, gun bans have disarmed the citizenry and thereby increased crime. Please do not cause more crime by depriving American citizens of the firearms they need for self-defense in these dangerous times.

Some people contend that because self-loading rifles are more dangerous than the guns in existence in 1789, they are not protected by the Constitution.

James Madison never watched television, or talked on the telephone. Yet the first amendment protects the speech of TV reporters, and the fourth amendment protects the privacy of telephone conversations. The Bill of Rights did not speak of particular technologies, but of categories of rights: the freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freedom from searches without probable cause. As technology creates new ways to exercise these rights, the Constitution provides a continuing structure for their protection.

Besides, most other Constitutional freedoms are more dangerous now than they were 200 years ago: 60 Minutes or the Miami Herald can instantly destroy a person's national reputation. The publication of leaked national security information during a war could lead to the death of American soldiers minutes later. A national security leak during a superpower confrontation could damage negotiating positions, and lead in the worst case to nuclear war.

Destructive religious cults did not exist 200 years ago. But today, freedom of religion can kill people--as we learned at Jonestown--and can cripple minds--as we see in victims of Sun Myung Moon's 20th century brainwashing techniques.

New technologies such as telephones and automobiles make possible the existence of criminal organizations of vastly greater scale--and harm--than before.

Para-military guns have killed fewer people in the last decade than Jim Jones did in one day. Despite some misinformed claims, we do not face an assault rifle crisis requiring the abrogation of Constitutional rights. Studies by the National Institute of Justice, by the B.A.T.F., and by weapons experts from the New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles police forces confirm that criminals, including drug dealers, only rarely use assault rifles. Criminals prefer the portability and concealability of handguns and sawed-off shotguns.

In these dangerous times when criminal gangs are on the rampage, the government must not infringe the American people's right to keep and bear arms that are essential for self-defense. We do not believe that any of our Constitutional rights should be put aside because it is alleged that those rights are more dangerous now. If the Constitution is obsolete--and we do not believe it is--the proper approach is to amend it, not to flout it.

Constitutional rights are for all time.[Page: E1678]END.

-- Resistance (resistance@gunshop.fun), May 21, 1999.

Zoobie:

As far as I know, it's still a private transaction. Where I live, the newspaper run firearms ads in the classifieds. Some states may be different, some newspapers may have stopped carrying ads. Frankly I'm a little surprised by the quirkiness of gun laws so you can never tell. Take the concept of the mandatory sale of gun locks on handguns. The feds want to mandate the issue with every purchase, but the law does not require the new owner to utilize the locks. Like mandatory seatbelt laws, it's probably coming, but it's not part of the current legislation.

If you have any questions, call a local gun club. I'm sure their very up to date on private firearm transactions as it is not unusal for members to purchase guns from one another, legally.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Just be sure to watch for the "becomes effective date" of any gun show sale law, if it makes it past the House. You can bet your sweet bippy that there are going to be some very sold-out gun shows between now and whatever "takes effect" date such a law will have. Check the Shotgun News for the next gun show near you and enjoy the shopping.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 21, 1999.

One of the unfortunate things about living in Hawaii is that we have very strict gun laws (registration, almost impossible to geet a carry permit, etc...). While I don't like having my name on a central registry, I can also do some other preparations using legal non-registered weapons.

PS - Anyone think that maybe why WJC really doesn't like gun laws is that he's afraid of mad husbands, fathers, brothers having them?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 21, 1999.

What we need is someone with balls, deep pockets, and a lawyer who understands the issue, to shove it to the supreme court, and to start with the (House or Senate I don't remember and am a bit lazy to look right now) committee on the Constitution document referenced by one of the threads in the archives. Incredible reading, and it might be nice to see it adjudicated.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 22, 1999.

The following 73 U.S. Senators chose to continue to violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution this past week via Senate Bill S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999: A bill to reduce violent juvenile crime, promote accountability by rehabilitation of juvenile criminals, punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes. and, more specifically, via further gun control measures introduced and passed by Frank Lautenberg Amendment S.AMDT.362 to Senate Bill S.254.

--- YEAs 73---

Abraham (MI) Akaka (HI) Allard (CO) Ashcroft (MO) Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Bennett (UT) Biden (DE) Bingaman (NM) Bond (MO) Boxer (CA) Breaux (LA) Bryan (NV) Byrd (WV) Chafee (RI) Cleland (GA) Cochran (MS) Collins (ME) Conrad (ND) Daschle (SD) DeWine (OH) Dodd (CT) Domenici (NM) Dorgan (ND) Durbin (IL) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Fitzgerald (IL) Frist (TN) Graham (FL) Grams (MN) Hagel (NE) Harkin (IA) Hatch (UT) Inouye (HI) Jeffords (VT) Johnson (SD) Kennedy (MA) Kerrey (NE) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Kyl (AZ) Landrieu (LA) Lautenberg (NJ) Leahy (VT) Levin (MI) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln (AR) Lott (MS) Lugar (IN) Mack (FL) McConnell (KY) Mikulski (MD) Moynihan (NY) Murkowski (AK) Murray (WA) Reed (RI) Reid (NV) Robb (VA) Rockefeller (WV) Roth (DE) Santorum (PA) Sarbanes (MD) Schumer (NY) Sessions (AL) Smith (OR) Snowe (ME) Specter (PA) Stevens (AK) Thurmond (SC) Torricelli (NJ) Warner (VA) Wyden (OR)

The following 25 U.S. Senators chose to continue to support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution this pst week by not approving senate Bill 2.54 containing Lautenberg Amendment S.AMDT.362:

--- NAYs 25---

Brownback (KS) Bunning (KY) Burns (MT) Campbell (CO) Coverdell (GA) Craig (ID) Crapo (ID) Enzi (WY) Feingold (WI) Gorton (WA) Gramm (TX) Grassley (IA) Gregg (NH) Helms (NC) Hutchinson (AR) Hutchison (TX) Inhofe (OK) Nickles (OK) Roberts (KS) Shelby (AL) Smith (NH) Thomas (WY) Thompson (TN) Voinovich (OH) Wellstone (MN)

These two Senators apparently did not wish to stand up and be counted:

--- Not Voting 2---

Hollings (SC) McCain (AZ)

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 22, 1999.