Bill to Ban (some) Body Armor

[ponderingturtle]

No, that's fine.

It's what else they will do that's worrying.

My handguns were voluntarily listed with the local sheriff in case of theft.
I'm not too worried about him.

So conspiracies are why we block the part that we are ok with?

I don't want guns banned. I want sensible laws, the problem is that what is sensible is very different. Supreme court judges find not being able to sell your guns to random people an unreasonable imposition on personal property.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In the transfer model I mentioned the buyer passes a background check. What is the point of identifying the seller who did nothing illegal?

So that if the new seller does sell it illegally there is some way to figure out who it was. Being able to track down who was violating the law is clearly a conspiracy. Because they might be used for a nefarious purpose, that is why we need to oppose registration of people and this social security numbers. That is for rounding people up eventually.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Any link for the bolded?

I've sold a bunch of firearms on Gunbroker as an non-licensed individual and have paperwork from the buyer and a copy of the receiving FFL's license in my records - I know of no serious firearms owner (I know, NTS fallacy) selling firearms at the price level of high-end collector firearms or NFA weapons and devices that doesn't do likewise.

I also have never experienced a potential buyer that attempted to buy a firearm w/o paperwork. I have had folks complain about the high price of shipping though, and have had people bid up a rifle and win the auction only to crawfish out of the deal.

I note you list a very specific and expensive class of weapons as your limiting factor. What about ordinary non NFA weapons?

And these are not sold on line, the arrange the sale on line and then meet up in person for the sale. Many sellers are very willing to work with people who don't want background checks.

 

[WildCat]

So that if the new seller does sell it illegally there is some way to figure out who it was. Being able to track down who was violating the law is clearly a conspiracy. Because they might be used for a nefarious purpose, that is why we need to oppose registration of people and this social security numbers. That is for rounding people up eventually.

You're assuming that the person selling it illegally would leave the serial numbers intact. I suppose it's possible, but very unlikely.

How effective have gun registrations been in tracking down sellers of illegal guns?

 

[WildCat]

And these are not sold on line, the arrange the sale on line and then meet up in person for the sale.

How else would it be done?

 

[BStrong]

I note you list a very specific and expensive class of weapons as your limiting factor. What about ordinary non NFA weapons?

And these are not sold on line, the arrange the sale on line and then meet up in person for the sale. Many sellers are very willing to work with people who don't want background checks.

My experience with sales of firearms dates back before the GCA of '68 and the expansion of state laws in California addressing firearms sales and transfers, and I'm familiar with the online sales landscape as well.

When I disposed of a number of conventional handguns here in California from 2011-2013 on www.calguns.net, from mundane to NIB, I never once encountered a buyer that even hinted that they wanted to do transfer outside of the state system - a few LEO's bought handguns from me on departmental letterhead thus exempting them from the ten day waiting period, but nobody tried any workarounds on state and federal law.

I read the Everytown report on online gun sales in Vermont:

http://everytown.org/documents/2015...ating-illegal-online-gun-sales-in-vermont.pdf

But what they didn't document but only estimated was how many sales (as defined by them) were illegal transfers - note, Vermont has no law mandating background checks or FFL transfers for private party transfers. I can only wonder why they picked Vermont when they could have used the classified ad section at the Calguns.net website, but as California has a whole slough of laws that restrict legal person-to-person transfer they might have wanted a more target rich environment with no state transfer records that might deflate their theory.

If you have any additional info detailing how "many sellers" help buyers avoid background checks I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[BStrong]

How else would it be done?

In my case, the whole deal in my last round of sales was a little convoluted.

I'm in S.F. the rifles were in secure storage (read as:Vault) in a state where their possession was unrestricted, and the N.F.A. pieces were legally held and transferable.

I had to have the rifles shipped to a FFL dealer for the purchaser (if the purchaser wasn't an FFL or SOT themselves) I'd receive payment via a cashier's check or USPS postal MO. I'd have the rifles shipped overnight to the receiving FFL - it ain't cheap - but the less time in transit the less of an opportunity to go Elvis.

Because I have a 100% feedback rating on Gunbroker and would include photos detaining condition and was available via phone any questions that a potential buyer had could be answered, buyers were able to build a little trust that the person they were sending a big payment to was a stand-up guy.

Interestingly some of the buyers ended up being internet/phone buddies, so if I ever find myself in certain areas I have folks to visit I've never met before in person.

 

[The Norseman]

The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see a "right to self defense" per se in this wording. Nor any reference to armor. The places I looked up definitions list arms and armor differently.

Okay, try the ninth and tenth amendments then. Done deal.

I already cited several examples of "bad guys" wearing armor to protect themselves from police gun fire while committing serious crimes. Clearly better armor will protect them better. You may not consider this to happen frequently enough to justify a law, or you may have problems with the specifics of this particular bill. You might even conclude that it is not a "big" problem. But I would hardly maintain that it "isn't even a problem."

A problem acute enough to spend time, energy and money on passing legislation for it? I think at this point the 'bad guys wearing body armor' isn't even a problem sufficient to warrant the effort. In the future, that can change, of course.

Sorry, for the confusion, since the the post you quoted asked specifically about 2nd Amendment. But now, understanding you are invoking common law and not a Constitution: can one invoke common law to overturn in court the legality of a bill once passed by the legislature, such as might happen to the one under discussion? As you know, much common law is also limited to jurisdiction and interpretation; many are limited in terms of specifics (as far as I know, for example, one cannot legally buy a tank in the USA even for "self-defense"). My specific question (to which you responded) was if this bill violated the 2nd Amendment (with the idea that if true, it might be overturned by a court).

Okay. Try the ninth and tenth amendments then. Done deal.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't want to carry a gun for defense. I don't want to own a gun for defense. If I was concerned, I'd rather carry a taser. I can't, they're illegal here. Failing that, I'd rather have mace. I can't, it's illegal here. Failing that, I'd want a bullet resistant vest to help me run away. You want people to stop using guns but also want to deny them all the alternatives. Doing this of course makes people defend what is left more. More importantly, it makes people turn to what's left. I don't want to carry a gun for defense, but if I had to worry about my defense, guess what, a gun is all that's left...

...[y]ou don't want people using guns? Don't take away all the alternatives.

Well said.