Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Because it's an ineffective and unenforceable law. The DOJ told us this 10 years ago.

HR.8 is the current and presumably best idea Democrats have for a "universal" background check. Under HR.8, one of these situations in each set of three are illegal without a background check:

A gift to my brother.
A purchase of a gun my father left to my brother.
A “forever loan” of a gun to my nephew.

Loaning an AR-15 to my uncle to hunt coyotes on his ranch.
Loaning an AR- 15 to a complete stranger while we compete in 3 Gun
Loaning an AR-15 to my buddy the cop to shoot on his uncle’s property to see if he likes the trigger.

Loaning a shotgun to a co-worker to carry while he’s fishing two states away.
Loaning a shotgun to a close single mom friend whose violent ex-husband gets out of jail at the end of the week.
Loaning a shotgun to a neighbor to shoot some skeet at the local range.

Which action in each group would be illegal under HR.8?

 

That’s opinion. And it’s wrong. The evidence from states here and other countries is....it works. Stronger gun laws, less gun violence. They are enforceable in states and countries that have them . Case closed. You have no contradictory evidence. That’s science which your side does not believe in. “In Wayne we trust” is a poor excuse for being wrong all the time.

 

They all SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. ILLINOIS ( and others) HAS A PERMIT SYSTEM. It works. You only loan or give possession of guns ( other then hunting which requires a license) if the person has a carry or renewable buyers permit, case closed. Even long term NRA members love it. Just by having a buyers or carry permit, you’re set to buy guns and ammo privately and from a dealer without waiting for a separate BC.

You are incorrect. It’s enforceable and has shown positive results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

 

Yes, it is. I'm still not discerning your point.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

You’re wrong.

 

Take it up with the DOJ.

"Stronger gun laws, less gun violence", even if true, is a much broader statement than "universal background checks are enforceable and effective". They aren't the same thing.

I live in a state with "universal" background checks. Under the provisions of my state, any two non-prohibited persons can transfer a firearm for up to three days for any lawful reason. Yesterday I took possession of an AR-15 rifle from a friend that is failing to go into battery while firing, a deficiency that we noticed the last time we were at the range. I'm going to troubleshoot it and test fire it tomorrow. If I get it back to him within three days, neither of us has committed a crime. If I don't get it back to him within three days, we've committed at least one crime and legally he would be required to pass a background check to get his own rifle back.

How could this be enforced?

Scenario: I’m traveling to the range on Sunday morning, which I do once or twice a month. It’s a 45 minute drive into country. In my car I have four rifles: one I bought new six years ago, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, without a background check, prior to my state UBC being passed (legal); one I bought used, after the law was passed, without a background check (illegal). Suppose I get stopped for speeding by the police.

How does the LEO know that one of the guns in my car was illegally obtained?

I've talked with police officers who have told me that they wouldn't enforce this law.

If it's enforceable in California, how come so many criminals still have guns in California?

Again, from the DOJ report "Summary Of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies": ": Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process"

Do we have this?

More importantly, it's a straw man argument.

 

What am I wrong about?

Afraid to demonstrate your expert knowledge by attempting the quiz? To be frank, no GCA has ever attempted it, much less passed it.

 

I don’t have to demonstrate anything. I simple post ideas and conclusions from qualified institutions. You follow Wayne’s World.

Another survey posted in US News....which is more trust worthy them Wayne.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-laws-linked-to-less-gun-violence-study-finds

 

Why are you asking me ? Do the research. Those of us who have had a Concealed carry permit for decades that is renewed every three years for $20 would love to see a law that allowed us to use it as a substitute for individual purchase BCs for firearm and ammo purchases in both private and dealer sales.
Illinois allows you to carry according to your permit from out of state. They don’t ban assault weapons or large capacity mags. The science they use works to reduce gun crimes. Permit holders IMO are among the last people you need worry about engaging in illegal activity. They have way too much to lose.

btw, permits only bypass individual BC requirements. . They REQUIRE BCs to have, so I assume you don’t mean they bypass them altogether.

 

It’s too bad you don’t know. Not knowing the law won’t save you from being prosecuted. Look it up.

 

You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
Disagree?
Compare and contrast the gun laws/gun-related violence in Maine to the gun laws/gun-related violence in Maryland.
I accept your concession in advance.

 

I just produced in my posts several sources from reliable institutions and the studies they chose to print. You’ve produced nothing.

 

You’re laughable. Maine has fewer people then trees in some towns. I spend a lot of time in Maine. North of Portland it’s a wilderness. It’s statistically invalid to compare firearm laws with what they do in cities that are 8 times more populated then in a state that has more land mass then the entire rest of NE. You’re funny. I can walk out a back door in the Maine woods and shoot till my hearts content in any direction and never have a bullet travel a hundred yards.
Population density of Maryland, 600 plus
Population density of Maine, 43.
You’re funny.

 

Look at you, avoiding the truth.
As usual.
Compare and contrast the gun laws/gun-related violence in Maine to the gun laws/gun-related violence in Maryland.
I accept your concession in advance.

 

Look at you, fully unaware of your admission that several factors have as much, or more, to do with the level of gun violence in a state than its gun laws.
Thus, you demonstrate there is no basis in fact for you your position that stronger gun control leads to less gun-related violence.
Well done.

 

Maine is just one of a couple of states that are too small, that doesn’t correlate gun laws with gun violence. If you actually read the studies and knew statistics, you wouldn’t be making the typical uninformed comments. Maine with its weak gun law laws is a supplier of firearms then it should be to the criminal elements in surrounding denser states. I suppose because you can go through life avoiding science and continue being wrong.

 

Look at you. Another invalid post of contrived babble from Wayne’s world.

 

and the militia is private citizens waiting to be called into action. Guess that would be me.

 

Only the organized Militia, the national guard, is capable of defending the constitution. The unorganized militia....is a joke.
They have no support personnel,

 

I know tons of veterans that are just waiting to fight for America one last time. Every one of them would disagree with you.

 

Not what the SCOTUS says so...that would make you both wrong and proves you haven't read the actual words. A common problem among your type.

 

feigning ignorance is probably not your best approach.

 

Every state, regardless of its laws, is its own single largest supplier of firearms to instate criminals.

 

Nothing here changes the fact you proved your Wayne's World claim to be false.
You’re funny.
You’re laughable.
You’re funny.

 

Look how your goalpost shifted form "...reread the Bill of Rights...It's right there....IN THE ****ING WORDS!" to "what the SCOTUS says".

I accept your concession.