Senator Chris Murphy Filibusters Senate

[TZucchini]

You've figured out a way to squint at it to convince yourself, so good for you. Not for nothing, seeing as there's no evidence that anybody is actually using this business model, do you have any indication that any mass shooter has acquired a firearm this way legally? i.e. including with no present intention to use it in a crime?

And if I did, would you concede that online purchases without background checks should be prohibited? No, you wouldn't. So not really sure why that matters.

Then say that. Say that in some states private transactions are legal. But anyone trying to make a living doing this is committing a felony, because after an unspecified and arbitrary amount, you get classified as a dealer. Don't say you can buy guns online and give the impression there is an an Amazon for gun buys.

I gave no impression of an Amazon for gun buys. I've simply been correcting the misinformed belief that you can't purchase firearms online legally without a background check.

[Citizen T]

the background check would prevent them from purchasing them from private sellers over the internet.
The entire point is to require a background check for EVERY fun purchase, not just those that are through a dealer.
(btw: according to the same information for the 7k/300k the online background check takes on average 9 minutes.)

IE the transaction I presented earlier would have required a background check at which point someone would have corrected what the officer told us and we never would have made that transaction.
(I yield it was illegal and we were simply given incorrect information, but its several years too late to fix that now.)

Ok. Say there was a law (another one besides the one you already ignored) to conduct a background check. If you'd been told that it wasn't necessary you'd not have done it anyway and still broke the law. You ignored at least 2 (under age and straw purchase) so what's another?

[Stormdash]

And if I did, would you concede that online purchases without background checks should be prohibited? No, you wouldn't. So not really sure why that matters.

I haven't even concede that that's an adequate legal description of what you're describing, nor do I plan to, because you really do have to squint at it. A true "online transaction" really isn't limited to residents of the same state as a practical matter, but also forms a binding contract at the point of sale, which I've yet to see you establish happens in that scenario. Nobody is paying a non-FFL money for a gun that they just hope will get shipped, which is all you're doing with any private seller you don't meet face to face.

[KeirAdish]

Ok. Say there was a law (another one besides the one you already ignored) to conduct a background check. If you'd been told that it wasn't necessary you'd not have done it anyway and still broke the law. You ignored at least 2 (under age and straw purchase) so what's another?

You really aren't reading anything I'm writing.
So I'm going to assume you have absolutely no intelligence from this point on.

please go back to grade school and learn to read basic English.

Infracted for flaming

[TZucchini]

More to the topic, though. Isn't it just completely American that we attempt to pass laws after something happens. I mean we certainly talked about prohibiting sales to people on the terrorist watch list before this incident happened. But we didn't do anything. Now we've run into a situation where a carefully crafted law could have prevented this purchase, or at the very least flagged the purchase for further review. There was a real opportunity to stop this shooting.

So now. Now let's do something. I mean shit. Even Trump is getting on board.

[Citizen T]

And if I did, would you concede that online purchases without background checks should be prohibited? No, you wouldn't. So not really sure why that matters.



I gave no impression of an Amazon for gun buys. I've simply been correcting the misinformed belief that you can't purchase firearms online legally without a background check.

Someone who could not pass a background check cannot purchase a firearm legally period - thru the mail, in person, from an FFL or any other way you can think of.

- - - Updated - - -

You really aren't reading anything I'm writing.
So I'm going to assume you have absolutely no intelligence from this point on.

please go back to grade school and learn to read basic English.

I've read everything you wrote. It boils down to the fact that you broke 2 laws but think that a third would have stopped you.

[KeirAdish]

Someone who could not pass a background check cannot purchase a firearm legally period - thru the mail, in person, from an FFL or any other way you can think of.

Except you don't have to currently have a background check to purchase a gun from a private seller!!!
THAT IS WHAT YOU KEEP BLOODY WELL IGNORING!!!

THAT IS WHAT IS TRYING TO BE CHANGED!!!

[Citizen T]

More to the topic, though. Isn't it just completely American that we attempt to pass laws after something happens. I mean we certainly talked about prohibiting sales to people on the terrorist watch list before this incident happened. But we didn't do anything. Now we've run into a situation where a carefully crafted law could have prevented this purchase, or at the very least flagged the purchase for further review. There was a real opportunity to stop this shooting.

So now. Now let's do something. I mean shit. Even Trump is getting on board.

So what do you propose?

What other Constitutional rights should we be able to suspend without due process? or even a way to dispute?

[KeirAdish]

I've read everything you wrote. It boils down to the fact that you broke 2 laws but think that a third would have stopped you.

Obviously not, Because you would have seen that I conceded on that it was an illegal sale, but that I had been misinformed by the very person that was supposed to guide me and answer my questions regarding the law.
Had there been a background check involved in my friend it would have popped up as a minor and they would have quickly corrected us and we never would have gone through with it.

but you're somehow convinced that I'm a hardened criminal and would have gone through with the sale regardless, is this because you would break the law or just that you assume everyone that disagrees with you even the slightest is a dangerous criminal hellbent on breaking the law?

[Stormdash]

More to the topic, though. Isn't it just completely American that we attempt to pass laws after something happens. I mean we certainly talked about prohibiting sales to people on the terrorist watch list before this incident happened. But we didn't do anything. Now we've run into a situation where a carefully crafted law could have prevented this purchase, or at the very least flagged the purchase for further review. There was a real opportunity to stop this shooting.

We didn't do that because heads that respect the Constitution prevailed. In that case, the 5th Amendment more than merely the 2nd.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process".

Well guess what -- owning a firearm is a liberty interest under the Constitution; you can't deprive it without due process of law. Firearms you already own are a property interest; you can't deprive someone of them without due process, either.

So now. Now let's do something. I mean shit. Even Trump is getting on board.

Oh, he touched the stove and he knows it. Hasn't said another peep about it since the original tweet, which is the opposite of captain double-down's MO.

[Sunseeker]

I am very hesitant to strip people of their constitutional rights.

Why include dishonorable discharges?

[Stormdash]

So what do you propose?

What other Constitutional rights should we be able to suspend without due process? or even a way to dispute?

Why should people on the terrorist watch list be given counsel, or a jury trial? Or be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure? None of those are any less significant than the right to keep and bear arms.

[Poopymonster]

And those "illegally acquired" guns don't just appear on trees. They're stolen (a matter which can be dealt with via proper storage laws) or purchased legally by strawbuyers (a matter that can be dealt with via registries and appropriate investigation/prosecution of said buyers and their backers).

No can do. Registries lead to lists. Lists lead to investigations. Investigations lead to confiscation. Confiscation leads to FEMA camps. FEMA camps lead to Obama running for and winning a third term as the Antichrist and offspring of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin while breastfeeding Mohammed the Prophet reborn, Praise be to Allah.

[Stormdash]

I am very hesitant to strip people of their constitutional rights.

Why include dishonorable discharges?

As a precursor to honorable ones, probably. Remember, Janet Napolitano's DHS issued a report saying one of the biggest risks of domestic terrorism were American veterans. But, yeah, let's let these people arbitrarily put people on a list and suspending their civil rights.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

The only time I would want to be in a filibuster is if Patton Oswalt is there to talk about Star Wars.

[dejaa]

https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/

"HOW TO BUY
1) Before You Buy
Purchasing a firearm online is easy as long as you follow these steps & to ensure that your transaction is processed smoothly, please review these requirements carefully before purchasing online."

You intentionally overlooked the next paragraph.

"We cannot ship a gun direct to you, but we can ship to the local FFL dealer of your choice."

[TZucchini]

So what do you propose?

I propose that we not sell firearms to individuals on a terrorist watch list.

What other Constitutional rights should we be able to suspend without due process? or even a way to dispute?

No other rights. Just the silly "right" to own a piece of metal should be subject.

[KeirAdish]

You intentionally overlooked the next paragraph.

"We cannot ship a gun direct to you, but we can ship to the local FFL dealer of your choice."

The question wasn't if you could have it shipped to you.
The question was to show any website where you could purchase a gun online.

The entire transaction is completed online, the only part not is the pickup of the weapon.
The question was properly answered, it wasn't until later that more modifiers were added after being proven that the statement "You cannot legally buy a gun online " was indeed false.

[TZucchini]

We didn't do that because heads that respect the Constitution prevailed. In that case, the 5th Amendment more than merely the 2nd.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process".

Does that include the detainee's in Gitmo? I mean, they are people after all.

But yeah. Due process should be present. You should be able to be removed from the list. Quickly and easily. Not sure anyone would argue otherwise.

[Citizen T]

Except you don't have to currently have a background check to purchase a gun from a private seller!!!
THAT IS WHAT YOU KEEP BLOODY WELL IGNORING!!!

THAT IS WHAT IS TRYING TO BE CHANGED!!!

The problem lies herein. From the point of view of the law there is no difference between a sale and a transfer - it's the same thing. This means I would have to pay someone (a FFL dealer) to conduct a background check on my neighbor to let him borrow my handgun for a day at the range, or to gift a firearm to my daughter that live up in the mountains where things like bears and mountain lions roam her property (true story), or technically to even allow my wife access to my firearms while I am not present. Then I'd have to pay to have it transferred back.

Now if I were to make a private sale to someone who then turns out to be felon or any other proscribed person, at a minimum I'd have to spend a good amount of time and money (for a lawyer) to defend myself and at maximum be charged and/or convicted of a felony. The laws exist already, they are just not enforced properly. Making more laws will not solve anything.