Maryland Spree Shooter bought guns legally even though he was prohibited person.

[Svifnymr]

Why not just do a background check and dispense with the form?

What purpose does the form serve?

If a felon tries to purchase a gun, they can be prosecuted for it, so there's a penalty. It's also a fair warning that any of that stuff SHOULD dissuade someone from trying. The form also works as a record for the dealer with your information to track the purchase and record the information provided. The presence of the form is fine, the fact that they keep updating the form is a joke.

[vaeevictiss]

as an aside, this is just more proof a restraining order wont protect you.

[TITAN308]

as an aside, this is just more proof a restraining order wont protect you.

Why anyone thought otherwise is beyond me.

It is literally a piece of paper and relies strictly on fear of the law to keep the offender in check.

[Felya]

This is why:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/nra...-gun-registry/

[vaeevictiss]

Why anyone thought otherwise is beyond me.

It is literally a piece of paper and relies strictly on fear of the law to keep the offender in check.

Its funny really...to get a restraining order against you, means you probably werent following the law to begin with. Oh but now that theres a piece of paper surely they will follow the law now.

[Breccia]

That's disturbing. I didn't think anyone used 0.40 caliber weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

Its funny really...to get a restraining order against you, means you probably werent following the law to begin with. Oh but now that theres a piece of paper surely they will follow the law now.

The Constitution is also a piece of paper. Should we also treat it so flippantly? Bear in mind, your right to own a gun is on it.

[TITAN308]

That's disturbing. I didn't think anyone used 0.40 caliber weapons.

- - - Updated - - -



The Constitution is also a piece of paper. Should we also treat it so flippantly? Bear in mind, your right to own a gun is on it.

That wasn't his point. His point is if you rely solely on a restraining order for someone who violently wants to hurt you, you are probably a naive dumbass.

[Breccia]

That wasn't his point. His point is if you rely solely on a restraining order for someone who violently wants to hurt you, you are probably a naive dumbass.

Yes, and I was pointing out how foolish that was, because the restraining order is a piece of paper that represents legal authority. Like the Constitution.

I grow tired of that defense. "Oh, a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Oh, a stop sign is just paint on metal. Oh, that police badge is just brass on leather." By that logic, laws are meaningless items because they happen to be written down.

A restraining order is basically a "don't even think about it" warrant. It gives the protected the right to call armed law enforcement if the person involved gets anywhere near you/your house/place of work depending on the legal arrangement. It's right next to the "shalt not covet" Commandments where just the option that sadness will ensue is enough for you to bring down the hammer. If they were trivial little nothings that were as useless as described, we'd have given up on them long ago. And if someone's going to murder someone no matter what, they're ignoring a hell of a lot more than the restraining order, since murder is pretty damn illegal and I'm fairly sure that was not only on a piece of paper, but carved into divine tablets. But I guess those are just marks on stone.

[TITAN308]

Yes, and I was pointing out how foolish that was, because the restraining order is a piece of paper that represents legal authority. Like the Constitution.

I grow tired of that defense. "Oh, a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Oh, a stop sign is just paint on metal. Oh, that police badge is just brass on leather." By that logic, laws are meaningless items because they happen to be written down.

A restraining order is basically a "don't even think about it" warrant. It gives the protected the right to call armed law enforcement if the person involved gets anywhere near you/your house/place of work depending on the legal arrangement. It's right next to the "shalt not covet" Commandments where just the option that sadness will ensue is enough for you to bring down the hammer. If they were trivial little nothings that were as useless as described, we'd have given up on them long ago. And if someone's going to murder someone no matter what, they're ignoring a hell of a lot more than the restraining order, since murder is pretty damn illegal and I'm fairly sure that was not only on a piece of paper, but carved into divine tablets. But I guess those are just marks on stone.

You are still over complicating the statement.

I grow tired of the "Well if people break the law why should we even have laws" bullshit.

[Svifnymr]

If they were trivial little nothings that were as useless as described, we'd have given up on them long ago. And if someone's going to murder someone no matter what, they're ignoring a hell of a lot more than the restraining order, since murder is pretty damn illegal and I'm fairly sure that was not only on a piece of paper, but carved into divine tablets. But I guess those are just marks on stone.

A stop sign is a good example, it is followed most of the time as the rules of the land, but it will do nothing to stop a high speed chase as a criminal flees the police.

Depending on a restraining order vs a violent offender is comparable is the point that was being made.

[vaeevictiss]

That's disturbing. I didn't think anyone used 0.40 caliber weapons.

- - - Updated - - -



The Constitution is also a piece of paper. Should we also treat it so flippantly? Bear in mind, your right to own a gun is on it.

The Constitution does not give me that right though, it merely illustrates it. The Constitution actually gives no one anything or state what people can do, it states what the government CANNOT do.