Governor blackface in Virginia passes the anti-gun laws. No surprise and cowardly to do it when everyone was locked down.

Mellor wrote: »

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah, that's too subjective and wide open to abuse. If someone is planning an attack there's enough there to arrest them and take away their firearms and I've no problem with that part of it. But what's the benchmark for the other stuff? It could easily be misused by the powers that be.

I'm ok with the loaded gun one tbh. I don't think load guns should be left unattended ever.

I'm fine with this.

What's a universal background check mean ,in this context.

A background check is mandatory in some States for certain types of guns when you buy them from an authorised gun dealer, i.e. in a gun shop. Many states have no background checks if I was to sell you my gun (I'm not a gun dealer). A universal background check would cover those private gun sales too.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't report a legally held firearm being stolen asap. It's a fair assumption that a criminal who steals a gun whats to use it for something that gives gun owners a bad name.

Supposing I only use my gun an odd time and store it in the shed (nothing wrong with that in the US). I might not know it was stolen within 2 days of it being stolen. Supposing I went on holidays for two weeks and it was stolen when I was away, have I just committed a crime?

1 handgun a month. I think that more interesting one tbh. From a discussion POV.

What difference does that make if you buy one or ten handguns in a month? If someone is determined to do bad, then how does this law make people safer?

I can see most of these being challenged in the courts.

Mellor wrote: »

Ah ok. That sounds completely reasonable then.
If im buying a gun off you privately, surely having some sort of document to say I’m allowed to have a gun protects you in that instance.

That's the thing about America.......they have their 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't have to be 'allowed' to have a gun, it's your 'right' to have a gun or a heap of guns if you want. And the 2nd Amendment is also designed to help protect you against the Government. Not much protection if the Government have a list of who and where all the guns are.

That said, I've no problem with background checks but I don't set the rules.

I don’t think those laws have any impact on somebody buying a gun to do bad. But not do I imagine they intend to.

I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I'm guessing that you are saying that these laws aren't intended to impact on someone intending to do bad with the gun that they are buying. If that's the case, what's the point of the law?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I assumed they were targeting “new” gun owners being a bit over enthusiastic.

Nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm. I was an enthusiastic new gun owner once. Now I'm an enthusiastic old gun owner.

Firearms are serious tools, there’s a learning curve. Somebody new to firearms doesn’t need 10 handguns on day 1. I can just imagine some guy with lofty expectations thinking he’s gonna be John Wick with two berettas.

You are watching too many films if you think people are buying guns to be like John Wick. Bit insulting to law abiding gun owners to be honest.

Here's the problem. These laws don't just affect new gun owners, they affect all gun owners. If I had the money and lived in the States, I'd be the type of person who might buy two or three guns at a time. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them all tomorrow instead of one tomorrow, one the month after and one the month after?

Is the seasoned gun owner, who already has 10 handguns is particularly impacted. Does he buy more than 10 guns a year?

Some guys would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I do think somebody trading in or selling an existing gun should get credit though. Which isn’t clear if that’s the case.

Again that's unfair on law abiding gun owners. There shouldn't be a 'one in - one out' policy on guns. We had Superintendents here in Ireland say things like that to gun owners but there was no basis in law for them requiring that. In other words, they were going beyond what the law allowed.

Mellor wrote: »

I’m completely ok with’a convicted rapist, for example, being being excluded from owning a gun. They gave up that right imo. Others will disagree based on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Which is their choice.

I'm in agreement here too. If someone acts the bollix, they should have their guns removed. Some States in the US forbid convicted felons from owning firearms etc. Some states only allow them to have them in their own home etc.

I'd be in favour of preventing those who are convited of violent crime from having access to a firearm.

Not should have said nor. Autocorrect, sorry.
And yes that’s what im saying. If somebody wants to rob a gas station, they can do it just as easily with 1 him as 10 guns.
I don’t think that’s the target of the law, as it would be kinda pointless, no?

Yes, it is pointless. And it's these pointless laws that get law abiding gun owners p1ssed off. Why put limitations on law abiding gun owners if it will have no effect on criminals? Worse than pointless as it damages relations with law abiding shooters.

It was an example of somebody with of delusional expectations. I clearly wasn’t describing all gun owners in that light. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If somebody wants to take offence, that’s their right I suppose.

The reason most shooters don't like those comparisons as they are trotted out by the media who try to paint all gun owners as Rambos or John Wicks in an attempt to portray us as crazies who should have our guns taken away.

If we were American, I’d imagine we’d both already own multiple guns.
Would we still he allowed to go to Bass Pro, and buy a new 9mm, a .22 and a shotgun in the same day. Or have I got that wrong?

I don't know the ins and outs of the new US laws to be honest so I don't know the answer. I already own several guns as I am a target shooter who takes part in lots of different disciplines. Here in Ireland I have never bought two guns at the same time but I know a few people who have. Actually I have bought two guns in the same month and had no problems doing so here. The problem I had here was it taking two months to get one of the guns licenced and another three months after that for the second one. But that's down to inefficiencies in our system rather than anything to do with legislation.

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah,it's so loose that dumb blonde eaves dropping waitresses on an old 95 year old Korean and Vietnam vets table in the local cafe of his post. misheard a statement about one ol boy "planning to shoot up the high school across the road".When in actual fact the ol guy was commenting about the armed school security man leaving his place and sitting his ass in the diner for breakfast without any relif He actuallty said and witnessed by fellow Vets. "In my day there is no way you could desert you post like that without the relif showing up and being present.Now anyone could shoot up that school with him in here and no one gaurding the gate." Didnt stop the SWAT and PD arriving at his door and confiscating his gun collection as he was "red flagged" by the dopey coffee slinger. Now he is still looking at a huge court case and costs to retrive his guns.
Or your bitchy sister in law after another family arguement red flagging you because you told her to get out of the house and leave. Its wayy to subjective and makes a mockery of the guilty until proven innocent concept of Western law.

The kids and loaded firearms thing.Applying more to idiots leaving their guns in their cars in the seat rest,or glove compartment, or at home in the sock drawer and junior finding it,than actually kids taking the deer rifle or their .22 and going int o the forest or local town free fire area and plinking a few tins. But of course that now applies to all "childeren" which is a moveable feast over there in a definition in law.:rolleyes:

The universal backround check is ridicilous.There is already a backround check before you can purchase.It's called the Brady instant check.This is once your have filled in the form 4773 ,your details are typed in and it would give you a local and national yes/no/quiery answer.However what Gov Blackface now wants is that EVERY sale whether in a gunstore,bar or family member must fill in this form of firearms transfer.Even if you LOAN someone a gun to go deer or target shooting.So that means every transaction must be done in a gustore and the Brady/NiCSS check just cant handle this amount of quieries .it crashed utterly again in the run up to the national US lockdown.Where Americans bought over 350 MILLION guns and X million rounds of ammo in One.Single.Day!!!
IOW the civilian pouplation bought enough guns to requip their entire armed forces from the newest recruit to the highest brass in the Pentagon TWICE over!And oddly,since this lockdown started...Anyone hear of any "mass shootings?" That's why any sort of comparison between Ireland or Europe in gun-ownership with the US is a total non starter.

The one a month is going to fail in the courts.There is nothing in Virginia state law or the 2nd that says you can only buy X number of anything per month.

Looking at this with my TRUMP 2020 baseball cap on:D.The simple fact is anything restrictive is an infringement on the 2nd amendment. There are over 20 thousand federal,local ,state,state,city and town ordinances and laws on firearms ownership in the US lawbooks.How are more laws going to prevent further guncrimes?
Secondly.The US gunowners have steadily given ground,compromised and negoiated rights away since about 1934 more or less.When has the anti gun side ever recpriocated??? It's a non stop daily attack,by very wealthy arrogant men and women,who are not intrested in "just saving lives" and "sensible gun laws" who have armed security to protect them.it is about control and power,nothing else.

Says it all

Mellor wrote: »

I think it's fair to say any reasonable person is in favour of that. Should be easy to legislate for with tight definitions rather than loose laws.

Can of worms,extra large.Because of the way the US judical system works,you could be a felon for absolutely anything under their laws.Never have harmed a fly ,and get a felony rap for somthing like not paying your property tax,or digging a pond on your property to catch rainwater. Is that justification for prohibiting you owning a gun because of that felony?

But it would be very easy to make it much tighter. Instead of deemed a risk [by who ever]. Make it deemed a risk [by vitue of the fact they have been convicted of a violent crime].
That way it's black and white instead of subjective, and there's nothing you can say that will suddenly make you a risk.

The mental health aspect is still a minefield though. How do you quantify that.

You can't.Without going into a very lengthy discussion on how appalingly bad US mental health laws ,past and present have been and are along with their treatments of patients,it wouldnt make sense.Short to say.

I'd that the "recklessly" part would exclude an legal and safe usage.
But again the wording is important.

Wording is everything,definitions more so and context of it even more so. For a parent in the US in some state,it mightn't be a big thing to let their kids head off to the local town dump,to go and plink away with their .22s at tin cans and rats.As they and their grandparents did.Lots of US town dumps/wasteland are also the local "free fire area" and everyone know this.But say they get a ride home in a friends car,who shares it with his elder brother,who left his handgun in the glove box.They get pulled over in a proable cause roadside stop and it is found.Now you as a parent of one of the kids who was in the car are also facing a charge of allowing you "child" into a dangerous situation of a "recklessly stored" firearm.Yes! it is that fubar over there.

Does that mean that there's no background checks at all for private sales.
Say, I'm a violent offender. Specifically exclude from holding a firearm as part of my sentence. I find a guy on Craigslist sell a gun. We meet up, I give him cash. And I'm on my way?

100% correct.No backround checks on private sales.Bar Class 3 firearms,but seeing they are on a Fed level of registration,thats another story.Technically said yes to the above,as there is still a presumption of guilty until proven innocent.So unless you know that your buyer is a criminal,or have grounds to suspect such to give you proable cause to deny the sale,there is nothing to stop you from selling it.Just as there is nothing stopping you from asking for the buyers drivers liscense to verify his ID and data,and making a c call to the local Sheriffs dept if you have doubts post sale You as the offender OTOH have broken plenty of laws in doing or attempting such.And why bother anyway,when you can go to "Homeboy Retail"[We have a steal for sale every day!] and get whatever you need ,with absolutely no questions asked?

Requiring a check for lending somebody a gun is ridiculous. As would it be for testing a gun on a range prior to buying

.

Yip,take that up with Gov Blackface.You can be assured of three things in this life.Death,taxes and idiots making stupid gun laws!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,I guess the Canadians can kiss adieu to the rest of their guns after this latest shooting in Nova Scotia,as no doubt that gunhating Tredeau will be quick to jump on this as well.:mad::mad:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/19/americas/nova-scotia-shooting-mountie/index.html

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

tudderone wrote: »

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTxp9YJSXI

Very dim light at the end of this tunnel.Apprently he killed the mountie,used her issued sidearms,uniform and the police car to go and commit this atrocity.Which is actually incredibly cunnng.A figure of trust shows up at your door and shoots you and your Fam.So how will a "sensible gun law" stop that from happening???

I see on the news today a complete fcuking eejit decided to let loose with a blank firing pistol from his rooftop balcony in Kent UK. Something tells me he will live to regret it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/22/man-arrested-after-shots-apparently-fired-from-balcony-in-kent

This is a problem alright.As everyone expects oil products to be used quickly,and now the demand has collapsed,and the refineries and storage space is full to the brim globally.
Now if one was a smart bear and had a few bob.Be a great time to buy oli company and airline shares on a personal level,and on a country leadership level,an even smarter bear could secure a significant national reserve for a couple of Winters,while messing about with "Green energy" and listening to a 17yearold girls historinics.:rolleyes:

Good chance you could be buying shares in a company going out of existence.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well obviously not every last cent you have in them.But those what do survive will skyrocket.

A lot of the airlines that survive will need bailouts to get there. Which means shareholders will lose a chunk of ownership.

Cass wrote: »

Would someone please send this fool back and have him finish his leaving cert or something.

Our Minister for Health apologised for saying during a radio interview the day before that "there were 18 other viruses before Covid-19, and there has not been a vaccination found for any of them". Now you might think it's a bit harsh to criticise someone for making such a mistake, hell i even called it the Corvid virus once, but i'm not the Minister for health and not making policy based on not only the wrong information but utter s**t.

Its akin to the finance Minster "bicycle" O'Donoghue during a recent Dail question session saying he could not elaborate on the reason why Ireland is paying four (4) times as much for private hospital beds as the UK because he doesn't have the numbers, but even if he did he could not disclose them due to confidentiality deal with said hospitals. You know the same hospitals owned by the likes of Deni O'Brien, Larry Goodman, etc. and the same ones that one of the Chief Medical Doctors for the HSE said are unneeded and a waste of HALF A BILLION (€500,000,000) EURO.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/harris-apology-boo-boo-1004460



On a side note, there approx. 11 days left before article 18 of the Constitution seems to demand a second general election. Are we going to see a "Covid-19, emergency" Government being formed you know, for our own good.

Gangsterism combined with crass stupidity Cass, it'll never change.