Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

[SHMIV]

That 81% at Craigslist is bogus,,, You can't sell guns on Craigslist.

Well, it is against the rules; and I am suspicious of it. Craigslist is kind of self-policing, what with the flagging community, and all. That said, though, there are CL sites for hundreds of different areas. It's not completely unfathomable that there would be one or two areas with no one that would flag a gun posting.

Most certainly, a gun posting in the Hampton Roads or Richmond CL would be flagged and deleted within the first hour. A CL site for a more rural area of VA, though, you may be able to post a gun for sale without the hippies noticing.

Still... The whole damn thing is pretty fishy. Somebody is trying to play with a deck of cards stacked in their favor, I have no doubts about that.

[AlanM]

Read this article and tell me what you make of it. Where else would you find a gun online other than websites like this one, or sites like VaGunTrader?.

Is this just an end-run around the old and busted "gun show loophole" myth?.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/12/coaliti ... olated-law

Guaranteed!
This thread started on an Ohio forum long before the Bloomberg article and just lately it has been decided that the "buyer" was probably a Bloomberg stooge.

[OakRidgeStars]

From Norfolk Craigslist:

http://norfolk.craigslist.org/atq/2738573397.html
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/hsh/2731185302.html
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/for/2725387857.html
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/clt/2713266727.html

Shhh... don't tell Bloomy

[SHMIV]

Well, would you look at that. I'm surprised that the hippies haven't flagged those.

I was particularly amused that the shotgun was listed under "household items".

[VBshooter]

A lot of Airsoft and paintball stuff gets listed there too. Wonder if that's what Bloomies flunkies were buying? Anytime that pinhead announces something we all can just about guaran damn tee that it will be a story full of gaps with facts twisted so bad they beome moot points,,

[gatlingun6]

I saw that report on TV, but none of the ones I heard were from VA, but there could have been some. Here's my problem with this and another documentary that took place in Texas. A guy working with the the TV crew attended several gun shows in TX close to the Mexican border. Using hidden cameras the buyer did not say to these private sellers that he PROBABLY could not pass a background check, he said he COULD NOT pass one.

Nevertheless in pretty short order he had purchased 10 assault style rifles. Outside in the parking lot he was showing the weapons he purchased when up walked 2 Hispanics. They asked would you like to sell those weapons, we'll buy all of them if you are. When told that he was a collector they said OK and walked away. No doubt where those weapons were headed.

I keep hearing that the number of guns sold by private sellers is estimated as 40% of total guns sold. If that's correct it means that also half of all firearms are sold on the honor system. Unless there are stings that's no system at all.

Personally I would never sell a weapon to a total stranger, I don't care what he or she looked like. Why? Because I never want to hear a knock on the door and find policemen there asking me about a weapon I purchased from XYZ gunshop.

Before anyone gets their back up, I know I'm not legally responsible for whatever the buyer does with a weapon I sold, but that's little consolation if I find out by any means that someone was murdered with a firearm I sold. Further, what if the police say we need to ask you some questions about the weapon you sold to Billy Smith. He was stopped yesterday on a traffic violation where this weapon was recovered. He said he bought it from you, and that during the sale he advised you that he could not pass a background check. At the least your next call will be to your lawyer.

As gun-owners I think we ignore this problem at our own peril. Remember this, the 2nd A does not give anyone the right to unregulated, unfettered sale of and buying of weapons.
Gat6

[SHMIV]

The honor system is a great system, even with out stings.

Personally, I feel that it is wise to collect a bill of sale from whomever you are selling to, with the buyers drivers license info recorded on it. I seriously doubt that a criminal would willingly attache his name to a weapon like that. Granted, there are criminals that are thick enough to do that, but they make themselves rather obvious, anyway.

As to the 2A, it doesn't GIVE anything. It does recognize a preexisting right to keep and bear arms, without infringement. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't buy a rifle with the same ease and convenience as buying a six-pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes, that's a minor infringement. Shoot, they check ID's for beer and smokes, and they want to see your ID for a gun purchase, anyway. Put a big red F on the ID of a felon. That would make it pretty obvious to a private seller or an FFL.

[gatlingun6]

The honor system is a great system, even with out stings.

Personally, I feel that it is wise to collect a bill of sale from whomever you are selling to, with the buyers drivers license info recorded on it. I seriously doubt that a criminal would willingly attache his name to a weapon like that. Granted, there are criminals that are thick enough to do that, but they make themselves rather obvious, anyway.

As to the 2A, it doesn't GIVE anything. It does recognize a preexisting right to keep and bear arms, without infringement. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't buy a rifle with the same ease and convenience as buying a six-pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes, that's a minor infringement. Shoot, they check ID's for beer and smokes, and they want to see your ID for a gun purchase, anyway. Put a big red F on the ID of a felon. That would make it pretty obvious to a private seller or an FFL.

***********************************************************************************
Since the 2nd A was not fully incorporated against the States until now. What it did or did not do for an individual outside Federal Territory was moot. Until MacDonald, unless people could successfully argue at State level that firearms ownership was a preexisting right, where not guaranteed by State Constitutions, States and municipalities could and did legally restrict any right to own certain firearms, usually handguns.

No matter that you, or I may feel that the 2nd A prohibits any and all government infringement, SCOTUS has consistently returned opinions that it is not unfettered, and that reasonable regulations are permitted, whatever that means.

In the mess that SCOTUS created with the Heller and MacDonald decisions, they fully incorporated the 2nd A against the States. That means the Federals and not our State will now determine what regulations are permissible. So anyone in the States right camp just lost a big one.

SCOTUS inexplicably concluded that the 2d A applies to the ability to own and bear arms in the defense of yourself and people in your home. They did not opine that government may not restrict or prohibit a right to carry outside the home. SCOTUS made a narrow decision that did not go beyond the home.

This leaves open the possibility that in some future Congress the Feds could nullify all State right to carry laws outside the home because SCOTUS created Federal Supremacy in gun regulations.

In the wake of the Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS opinions, most subsequent gun cases have been denied. Oddly enough most of those cases were brought forward by ex-felons.

Personally, I think SCOTUS only muddied the waters. I don't think the 2nd A has anything to do with defending my person and my family in my home with a gun. To me it's an enumerated right found in the 9th Amendment.

This entire argument is why the Federalists and the Constitutional Convention rejected a Bill Of Rights. In one of the last Federalist Papers the argument went like this: Why list a right that government had no authority over in the first place? The mere listing of a right presumes that government has some control over that right. What colonial legislator would have opined that an individual did not have the right to defend his person in, or outside the home with a firearm? I think, none.

Gat6

[SHMIV]

The second half of of the second amendment is the important part. The first half simply states one of many reasons.

2A could read "Considering the possibility of our cattle becoming vampires, vicious beings invading from the heavens, and the inevitable zombie apocalypse, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And, it would mean exactly the same to me as it does in its current form.

The second half is the important part. The right to KEEP (own or possess) and BEAR (to carry on my person) Arms, shall not be INFRINGED (limited, undermined, invalidated).

As to SCOTUS, that is a panel of mortal men. They are not infallible. In fact, it's entirely possible the waters were muddied intentionally.

I see the Federalist point, but I disagree. Listing the rights did not imply any control over those rights, it was a declaration of recognition of those rights, and it also recognized that the government ought not be violating those rights. A mere recognition and respect of something does not, in any way, imply control over it. That would be like implying that I have control over the setting sun, simply because I wrote down that I saw it.