Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s problems with laws like this though. If my son or a friend want’s to borrow my shotgun to go duck hunting, they shouldn’t have to go through a background check to do so. I’ve let trusted friends and family borrow guns just like I’ll let them borrow my car. No big deal.

I live in Arizona and see people carrying all the time, open carry and I notice the occasional concealed carry as well. I often conceal carry myself. It’s part of the culture here and while folks are appropriately careful, they don’t act as if they’re carrying around unstable nitroglycerin. Guns are simply another tool in Arizona culture, especially the rural parts.

It’s interesting how different cultures/subcultures look at things like this.
 
I presume it was an older and so worn out that the safety was able to chatter out of place on hard impact. No doubt, I’m sure he never got to eat his order of a BLT and Fries that day as he was out the door. :point_right:t3:
 
Last edited:
Escabrosa said:
There’s problems with laws like this though. If my son or a friend want’s to borrow my shotgun to go duck hunting, they shouldn’t have to go through a background check to do so. I’ve let trusted friends and family borrow guns just like I’ll let them borrow my car. No big deal.
Click to expand...
I think, rather, that those who loan their guns ought to have the option of doing a background check without cost. If you loan to your son, why would you need to do a check when you know his criminal history? If, on the other hand, you are considering loaning to your daughter’s new boyfriend, well, I as a taxpayer would be just fine with requiring him to give you access to his firearm history as a condition of borrowing your weapon.

I would make it illegal only to have furnished a gun to someone who is forbidden from having one but not illegal to loan a gun without conducting a formal background check. I think that implies making the information needed to do the check available to those required to do a check even for a loan in which no money changes hands. If you are satisfied that you know the person’s background, there is no need to alert some registry somewhere about the loan.

In other words, make it a legal requirement to loan responsibly and provide the means for citizens to be responsible. Don’t make rules that add to what the citizen believes is needed to cover their duty to be responsible. Let people be free; only punish if neglect actually results in harm (such as putting a firearm in the hands of someone not allowed to have one).
 
Last edited:
I see no reason the tax payers should have to cover the cost of more big government. The cost of the background check should be part of the cost of owning or loaning a gun. If one cannot afford it, don’t own or loan. We are slowly inching towards the day when 80% of one’s salary will go to taxes. When that finally happens, only the unemployed will be happy. Indeed, they will be many.

That being said, you should realize that such a law regarding loaning guns would likely not be followed since there is no way to provided oversight. It would just be another useless law added to the ever expanding legal code and bloated face of government overreach.
 
Last edited:
You should have an option to select N/A (Not applicable.) Not everyone lives in the US.
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
I see no reason the tax payers should have to cover the cost of more big government. The cost of the background check should be part of the cost of owning or loaning a gun. If one cannot afford it, don’t own or loan. We are slowly inching towards the day when 80% of one’s salary will go to taxes. When that finally happens, only the unemployed will be happy. Indeed, they will be many.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If the court requires that such-and-so person may not have a gun, the court (or government) can cover the cost of communicating who those persons are who do not have the rights otherwise associated with citizenship. When I as a taxpayer support a law and put a duty on other citizens, I think I ought to bear a reasonable amount of the expense of complying with the legal expectation.

I am not big on unfunded mandates, though. What voters want, what voters ask their representatives to do, voters can help to pay for, unless they are simply asking for someone who profits from some activity or other to pay out as a cost of doing business for ameliorating the burdens put on society because of their business. I don’t see loaning a gun as being an activity that profits the gun owner. If the title of the firearm is not changing hands, then, I’d make the background check free. If the gun store wants to show they SOLD to someone having done a background check, then I’m OK with them having to pay for evidence they exercised due diligence. They and the buyer can work out how to pay for the background check.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
no right at all to sell them to those forbidden by law from owning them from selling to prohibited buyers
Click to expand...
Knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person is a crime. That’s already covered.
PetraG said:
It is impossible to require gun sellers to confirm that they are selling to someone who also has the right to own?
Click to expand...
You can make it a requirement, but without regular inventory checks on the entire population it would be impossible to enforce.
PetraG said:
How, may I ask, is the inventory of a privately-owned gun store not “private property”? Why do gun store owners not have this “right” you imagine that other owners have?
Click to expand...
Because they are engaged in commerce which can be lawfully regulated. Private citizens are not engaged in commerce when they sell something to another private citizen. They are not holders of a business license.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
That’s just law. Loophole is just a word people use to describe something legal that they don’t like.
Click to expand...
A loophole is defined as “an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.”

That isn’t just something legal that someone doesn’t like. That is a feature of the way a law is written that provides a means of evading the intention of the law. There is a big difference.
 
I personally won’t sell a gun to someone who I think is a little shady, but as I’ve said previously, there are problems with requiring background checks for private sales. I think there are ways a private seller can do this voluntarily, which is a good idea. I don’t want want a known felon buying my guns.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Because they are engaged in commerce which can be lawfully regulated. Private citizens are not engaged in commerce when they sell something to another private citizen. They are not holders of a business license.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that private transactions cannot be regulated just because someone doesn’t have a business license? It isn’t as if I can give my private stock of Jack Daniels to a high school student just because I don’t have a business license. I have to confirm the recipient is old enough to own, right?

I’m saying that if someone prohibited from buying a gun gets one and the authorities can show they bought it from you, you ought to have some explaining to do. If you have free access to a database of those prohibited from owning a weapon and can show you checked, then you ought to be off the hook. I’m willing to let you open yourself up to lawsuits or arrest because someone was harmed by a gun you neglectfully sold to someone not allowed to have one. It is no restriction of your rights to legally expect you to be responsible and to legally allow you to face the consequences when you were not.
 
Last edited:
At what point does such regulation constitute infringement? For those who rely on big government to run their lives, this is never a concern. Only look to recent news to see how poorly government functions to protect its citizens.
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
At what point does such regulation constitute infringement? For those who rely on big government to run their lives, this is never a concern.
Click to expand...
Infringement? Whatever constitutes “infringement,” expecting gun owners to take the trouble to confirm they are not selling to people prohibited from owning a piece of property designed to deliver lethal rounds is NOT it. The government has the right to expect that people will exert themselves enough to support reasonable restrictions placed on others deemed to pose a threat to life.

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights, but they aren’t more important than life itself, particularly the lives of those who are innocent of the risk-taking.

Sorry, but gun owners need to realize that other private citizens who have been ambushed or seen their children ambushed while at school, cut down when their lives have barely begun to flower, had better get it through their thick heads that they need to talk more about responsibility and less about “infringement.” Wondering if a nut is going to open fire at you while you are taking in a movie at the mall is “infringement.” Those who want to own firearms capable of mowing down two dozen people in a matter of seconds are–and excuse me for pointing out the obvious–pretty oblivious if they think the main thing other freedom-loving citizens are concerned about is the “infringements” that fall on those who choose to own lethal weapons.
 
Last edited:
I can imagine a system where a private party might be able to vouch for the person they are selling or lending to. In other words, “I know this person and their background and they are law abiding”. Of course, this would mean that you as the seller assume the liability if that isn’t true. I’d vouch for my mother or brother but perhaps not for my neighbor. 😉
 
TheOldColonel said:
The government has no rights, citizens do.
Click to expand...
Well, what the citizens decide to do by use of the vehicle of government, the citizens have the right to do. Getting laws passed that inconvenience the irresponsible are on the short list of those rights.

Perhaps I should have said a court justly has the power rather than saying a court has a right. I think we are splitting hairs at that point, though. We have a government that we have wisely given the power to govern. You know from your history books what happens when government is kept too weak, too. It is not pretty.
 
Last edited:
This is sort of the mindset I’m talking about. I know you’re using a figure of speech, but you are not a knight. Its not your job to be the self appointed sheepdog or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Well, if the people think they can amend the constitution, then let’s see them do it. We both know that won’t happen. Until then, the issue of government infringement upon already established rights will remain to be addressed by the people. Indeed, it is being addressed as we speak.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top