Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/17/2003 1:43:10 PM EDT
I have heard a lot of quotes from people on both sides of the debate about guns, supposedly showing the hipocrisy of the other's position. It has gotten so that I am having trouble figuring out what is true and what is urban legend. As I am writing a paper on the debate, I would truly appreciate it if people here can offer some hard facts on these.....it has gotten to the point about these things where everyone is just quoting everyone else...so a supposed source is actually just saying something they were told by someone else. Thanks! 1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun 2. Heston won't let children around him who want to shoot guns touch his because it's too dangerous 3. Boxer bought weapons for her children 4. Feinstein bought weapons for her children, and said that they were a special case because she had actually taught gun safety, while most people do not. (the hipocrisy here is that she claims that teaching children gun safety won't prevent them from acting irresponsibly with them) Any other urban legends anyone has, or other interesting true stories like this...and please..let me know about information coming from both sides of the debate, if you do, would be also appreciated. Thanks again!
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:52:08 PM EDT
1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun. True. And technically a "straw purchase" since she indicated on the 4473 that she was the actual buyr. 2. Heston won't let children around him who want to shoot guns touch his because it's too dangerous No idea, first I've heard of this one. 3. Boxer bought weapons for her children No idea, first I've heard of it. 4. Feinstein bought weapons for her children, and said that they were a special case because she had actually taught gun safety, while most people do not. (the hipocrisy here is that she claims that teaching children gun safety won't prevent them from acting irresponsibly with them) I don't think so. But she did buy one for herself and posseses the ONLY concealed carry permit ever issued in her district. An extra fun one, Jesse Jacksons son bought an UZI.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 1:54:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 1:57:06 PM EDT by EOD_Guy]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: 1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun. True. And technically a "straw purchase" since she indicated on the 4473 that she was the actual buyr.
View Quote
It really wasn't a straw purchase. Buying a firearm to give to another person as a gift is perfectly legal. The instructions on the 4473 clearly state that it is allowed.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:23:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: 1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun. True. And technically a "straw purchase" since she indicated on the 4473 that she was the actual buyr.
View Quote
It really wasn't a straw purchase. Buying a firearm to give to another person as a gift is perfectly legal. The instructions on the 4473 clearly state that it is allowed.
View Quote
NOPE. That [i]was[/i] true on ATF F 4473 (5300.9) (10-98) but it is no longer the case on ATF F4473 (5300.9) (10-2001). ATF's current position is that if you intend a firearm as a "gift" the recipent needs to come in and fill out the paperwork themselves. They are ambigous about payment however, since one person paying and another filling out the paperwork is one of [i]their[/i] indicators of a straw purchase as well. I bet you still thought FFLs only had to keep 4473s on file for 10 years too. [;)] Read a 4473 one day, you will probably shit.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:33:35 PM EDT
I thought that involved state laws. In some states a person to person sale must involve an FFL.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:46:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: I don't think so. But she did buy one for herself and posseses the ONLY concealed carry permit ever issued in her district.
View Quote
Umm, isn't Feinstein a US Senator? Wouldn't that make the entire state of California her district?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 2:57:26 PM EDT
Hypocrisy is alive and well. This should not be a big surprise. TT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:03:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 3:16:47 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Such eloquent testimony for the right to self protection. Can I get a witness? U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense: The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995: "Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home." "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." Please note that in almost all California cities it is nearly impossible for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In fact, the City of Los Angeles did not issue a single permit for over six years with the exception of issuing one to a new police chief who was not yet certified in California. In San Francisco only those who are have influence with the police department are issued permits. In the city of San Jose (in Silicon Valley) the previous police chief refused to issue any permits at all, no matter how endangered a citizen was. Source: CSPAN Coverage 04/27/95. This was on a page with a picture of DF with her finger wrapped around the trigger of an AK at a press conference. There's also the story that she let her license lapse, had the gun melted down and given to Pope John Paul. "Her own license has lapsed. Feinstein's gun was melted into a crucifix, which she later presented to Pope John Paul." and that she once had the only CCW in the city of San Francisco, shortly after the bomb at her house.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:01:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mace:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: I don't think so. But she did buy one for herself and posseses the ONLY concealed carry permit ever issued in her district.
View Quote
Umm, isn't Feinstein a US Senator? Wouldn't that make the entire state of California her district?
View Quote
She is. But I was referring to the district she lives in, not the one she presides over.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:07:06 PM EDT
Steyr: I believe the phrase 'City or County' would apply more than 'District' in your statement, in Kali the city or county of residence is the issuing authority for CCW. For the Heston one, he refused to give out guns during the LA riots to everyone that asked, thats probably where it came from. Kharn
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:11:53 PM EDT
Sarah Brady did not follow DE state law as I recall which makes what she did a straw purchase in DE.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:18:10 PM EDT
And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky.
View Quote
too bad. could have saved us all alot of headaches...
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:25:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: 1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun. True. And technically a "straw purchase" since she indicated on the 4473 that she was the actual buyr.
View Quote
It really wasn't a straw purchase. Buying a firearm to give to another person as a gift is perfectly legal. The instructions on the 4473 clearly state that it is allowed.
View Quote
NOPE. That [i]was[/i] true on ATF F 4473 (5300.9) (10-98) but it is no longer the case on ATF F4473 (5300.9) (10-2001). ATF's current position is that if you intend a firearm as a "gift" the recipent needs to come in and fill out the paperwork themselves. They are ambigous about payment however, since one person paying and another filling out the paperwork is one of [i]their[/i] indicators of a straw purchase as well. I bet you still thought FFLs only had to keep 4473s on file for 10 years too. [;)] Read a 4473 one day, you will probably shit.
View Quote
You better read the instructions again. They still address purchase as a gift. I just looked at one at a dealer and the part of the instruction reads "You are also the actual purchaser if you are buying the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party". Also BATF hasn't put out anything in their FFL bulletins indicating that a gift recipient has to fill out the 4473. No, I never figured that a dealer only had to keep the 4473's on file for 10 years. It's 20 years, after which they can be destroyed. (See 27CFR, 178.129(b)). If the transfer doesn't occur, the form can be destroyed after 5 years. I've read the form and
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:29:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: 1. Sarah Brady bought her son a gun. True. And technically a "straw purchase" since she indicated on the 4473 that she was the actual buyr.
View Quote
It really wasn't a straw purchase. Buying a firearm to give to another person as a gift is perfectly legal. The instructions on the 4473 clearly state that it is allowed.
View Quote
NOPE. That [i]was[/i] true on ATF F 4473 (5300.9) (10-98) but it is no longer the case on ATF F4473 (5300.9) (10-2001). ATF's current position is that if you intend a firearm as a "gift" the recipent needs to come in and fill out the paperwork themselves. They are ambigous about payment however, since one person paying and another filling out the paperwork is one of [i]their[/i] indicators of a straw purchase as well. I bet you still thought FFLs only had to keep 4473s on file for 10 years too. [;)] Read a 4473 one day, you will probably shit.
View Quote
You better read the instructions again. They still address purchase as a gift. I just looked at one at a dealer and the part of the instruction reads "You are also the actual purchaser if you are buying the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party". Also BATF hasn't put out anything in their FFL bulletins indicating that a gift recipient has to fill out the 4473. No, I never figured that a dealer only had to keep the 4473's on file for 10 years. It's 20 years, after which they can be destroyed. (See 27CFR, 178.129(b)). If the transfer doesn't occur, the form can be destroyed after 5 years. I've read the form and
View Quote
Just caught that. But it still contradicts their "Straw Purchase - Don't Lie For The Other Guy" literature. Accorging to that stuff, the gift recipient must fill out the 4473.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:55:51 PM EDT
They may say the forms can be destroyed but during the Clinton administation I decided not to renew my FFL because of the increase in cost. I held onto the records for as long as possible but after being threatended with federal prosocution I had to send in the forms to the ATF.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 7:10:04 PM EDT
Heston also supported the '68 GCA. That's a little tidbit he and the NRA have drastically downplayed.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 7:26:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 03shooter: They may say the forms can be destroyed but during the Clinton administation I decided not to renew my FFL because of the increase in cost. I held onto the records for as long as possible but after being threatended with federal prosocution I had to send in the forms to the ATF.
View Quote
They can only be destroyed by the dealer after 20 years. If you go out of business before then, the Feds want the records.
Top Top