Dealer has you fill out form and gets your state issued ID.
Calls System with that info, they compare your info to a list of people that are disqualified (felon, domestic violence, insane) and if they get a close match, you're denied.
If denied, you can appeal, submitting fingerprints to prove you are not said person.
If denied, you have lied on the original form you filled out, and can thus be prosecuted by the ATF for it, but they don't prosecute anybody since it's not worth their time.
False ID could be an issue, obviously. Obvious answer would be a firearms license where your fingerprints are checked to ensure you are who you say and then with said license you could purchase, but of course there won't be a national license of this sort since anti-gun states would never agree to it.
By contrast, in reaction to Kennedy's death in 63 (the rifle was bought through the mail, though not sure how that changed anything), they passes (in 68) a system whereby to ship a gun through the mail, the receiver had to have a Federal Firearms License. It was later changed to become a dealers license, though that was not it's original intent. Now in order to get one, you must have a retail establishment with operating hours, rather than it being a license to buy guns. They also drafted the "Curio & relics" license which was easier to get but only applied to really old guns.
For a concealed weapons license in florida, you need to submit finger prints. It can be done electronically in some places and the process takes less than a week, so there is no actual need for a background check to take longer than a week.
And lastly, the last numbers I saw (was a few years back) was that the average time between when a gun was used in a crime and when it was originally purchased, is 6 years, so mandatory waiting periods don't do a whole lot.
---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 01:11 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 06:17 PM ----------
Wow.As for prot... haha losers he dmg needs a nerf with the intercept shield bash wtf silence crit a clothie like a mofo.
The TEC-9, as a handgun itself, does have a very "colorful" history with the Feds.
The TEC-DC9's journey to America began with George Kellgren, a Swedish designer of military guns.
In the 1970s, South Africa's apartheid government was in the market for a new gun. It wanted something light and portable, yet capable of firing at machine-gun speed. Kellgren got a contract and designed a military submachine gun, akin to the Israeli Uzi, with a lightweight plastic stock. When South Africa failed to produce it, Kellgren began writing to firearms dealers in the United States, seeking a partner in the manufacturing business. He found one in Miami.
Carlos Garcia, a young man who had fled Cuba with his family, ran a small store in the city's Little Havana neighborhood called Garcia's National Guns. Garcia had no gunmanufacturing experience. But he had a knack for marketing, and he liked the paramilitary look of the handgun Kellgren sketched.
Together they formed Interdynamics Inc. in the early 1980s, producing their handgun and selling it at Garcia's store. They called it the KG-9 - K for Kellgren, G for Garcia - and described it as a weapon "combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachine gun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun.''
The KG-9 cost about $70 to produce. It was sold as a semiautomatic, firing one bullet with each squeeze of the trigger. But when federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents examined it, they found the KG-9 could easily be converted to a submachine gun, shooting a stream of bullets with a squeeze of the trigger.
The agency declared the KG-9 an illegal machine gun in 1982 and halted its production. Kellgren and Garcia then introduced the KG-99, a semiautomatic less readily turned into a machine gun. But they sold it with an "assault grip'' accessory designed for two-handed spray firing of a handgun with a 36-round ammunition magazine. Again, ATF stepped in. No assault grip on the KG-99.
In 1984, Kellgren left the business. Garcia's father entered, renaming the corporation Intratec Firearms and the KG-99 the TEC-9. Four years later, Carlos Garcia took over Intratec and created a new umbrella company, Navegar Inc.
Under his direction, Navegar became known for its provocative - some say reprehensible - promotion of Intratec's TEC-9s.
One ad referred to its "excellent resistance to fingerprints.'' Garcia later said that merely meant its finish would not rust from handling. Another ad featured a bikiniclad woman on her hands and knees, cradling an assault weapon. Another used a human head and heart as bull's-eyes, with gun smoke pouring from both.
Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-12-30 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Spotlighting
---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 12:46 PM ----------
It was just about cosmetics. If you want to say "looks matter too", then so be it, but it's purely cosmetics based with no understanding of firearms capabilities. No semi-auto fires faster than any other semiautic. Ballistics of the 223 are not governed by how the gun looks, but by barrel length, which means most AR15's (11-24", most 16 or 20 barrels) are ballistically inferior to most hunting rifles (20-26" barrels) of other varieties.Plus the last FAWB included the TEC-9, a semiautomatic handgun. So it wasn't just about cosmetics.
As I mentioned, the KG9 was the submachine gun that set the rep. Cheap, mass produced open bolt. When they made the semi auto version they basically did it in the cheapest possible way they could and it was possible to convert them back with little trouble. As I said, that was part of the 80's and long since done with. The tec-9 is a rap-video fame baby, not based on any actual capability of the gun itself. Again, rate of fire in semiauto is no more than a Glock 17, barrel length is similar so ballistics are similar also. 33 round magazines for the glock if you feel like it, though standard is 17.The TEC-9, as a handgun itself, does have a very "colorful" history with the Feds.
It does nothing special except look mean, purely cosmetics.
So if you're going to ban them because it's easier to convince folks they're bad, then the next logical step would be to ban the Glock since it's just as capable. Where do you draw the line and decide what is "reasonable"?
Now, off to make Pumpkin Muffins! If this thread gains another 5 pages before I come back, I may just go play GW2 instead of catching up.
So... from Feinstein's press release a few days ago...
First, we should acknowledge that the her claim about the previous FAWB only talks about total gun murders without isolating out assault weapon murders. On top of that, she fails to mention the fact that the decline in total gun murders is a situation that pre-existed the FAWB and has actually continued after the expiration of the FAWB in 2004. So the FAWB really just represents a status quo of a declining murder trend.A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.
But we already knew that. It's her second statement that has me scratching my head. So she's claiming that assault weapons have been used in 459 incidents, causing 385 deaths. Um... doesn't that mean that there's an average of less than one death per incident? And even adding in the injuries, that's less than 2 people harmed by these "dangerous weapons of war" (her words) per incident. Where are the "puffed up" body counts?
Additionally, during that same 8+ year stretch, from 9/2004 to 12/2012, there have been about 75,000 gun homicides, of which around 3100 were rifle homicides. 385 homicides by assault weapons means... <furious pushing of calculator buttons> ...wait, that can't be right, can it? Only 0.5% of gun homicides were due to assault weapons? And assault weapons were only responsible for about 12.5% of the rifle homicides? Doesn't that mean that non-assault weapon rifles were used in 7/8ths of the rifle murders?
In the same press release, she says (of her proposed FAWB):
Her use of the term "most dangerous guns" is, to me, as close to an outright lie as you can get. The are somewhere around 3.5 million AR-15 style firearms and around 300 million total firearms in the U.S. Even excluding all other kinds of "assault weapons" (various other rifles, pistols, and shotguns, etc.), that means that they make up over 1% of the total number of firearms, and yet, by Feinstein's own numbers, they're responsible for less than half of one percent of the number of firearm homicides.It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years...
That means that assault waepons are actually proportionately underrepresented in gun homicides. So, either "assault weapon" owners are less likely to go shoot someone to death, or their body counts are significantly lower, on average, per shooting than the remaining types of firearms.
Now, someone might point to her use of the words "at least" in the second sentence and imply that the actual numbers are much higher. But if the FBI can confidently conclude that rifles were used in over 3000 homicides, shouldn't Feinstein be able to say the same about "assault weapons"? And if the best number she can come up with is supposedly so far off the mark, then how can she conceivably call them the "most dangerous guns", let alone be allowed to draft legislature banning them?
Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2012-12-30 at 07:45 PM. Reason: clarity
This just in today:
T]he question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," the president said of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that -- ya know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."
Obama laid out his support for three gun control provisions -- a ban on assault rifles, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a requirement for background checks at gun shows. He said he hoped to see something passed within a year, despite pushback from the National Rifle Association and similar groups.
"My response is something has to work," the president said. "And it is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard, so we're not going to try.' So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody."
However some people have suggested that this would not happen. Obama would back down and it was already a forgotten memory in dems minds. This was taken from Meet the Press that just aired today. I say the issue is still alive and very well.
He had someone buy it for him. If the ban went through. He would never had the option to buy it in the first place. No matter how secure you make weapons. He was able to get his hands on them and I sincerely doubt it would have prevented deaths. Its more of an illusion and feeling of safety then actual safety. I support the background checks on gun show though.
Its a loop hole leading to un traceable guns to the hands of the people you do not want them to have.
I think a simple pistle or sharp object or bulletproof protection would be enough. do we really need these crazy war guns that have harsh consequences.