I don't doubt you saw such as sign, but I doubt such a sign would have force of law in any US state.
Perhaps on the Canadian side of the border?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
What are your reason(s) against background checks?
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
Perhaps on the Canadian side of the border?
namedpipes
NES Member
I ignored it and drove through, but I made sure not to infract. ("or if it even has teeth" was to indicate exactly what you said)
The town was somewhere along a day's lazy drive up the coast from Hampton Beach. Maybe around Wells. TOTALLY guessing there. This was not a turning point in my life that was burned into my psyche (well NOW it has been). Just a random data point that came to mind in the context of this thread...
The Constitution and the amendments, last time I checked, do not have asterisks or footnotes to denote, "at discretion of", "in certain situations", etc. The language used is clear and relatively concise. Background checks fundamentally infringe on our rights.
namedpipes
NES Member
And yet there is such a sign along that road. Drive it for yourself and see. It's probably still there.
I doubt that it is VALID but it does (or did as of several years ago) EXIST.
You misspelled "Infringed" wrong - several times...
I have no idea what sign you saw, what the sign said, or if you misinterpreted it. The simple fact is that there is no town or city in Maine where you have to report in to the local police if you have a firearm. There are no towns or cities in Maine that regulate or in any way restrict the ownership of firearms.
If you can find me a picture of this sign or anything at all online or otherwise that's confirms your story, I'd love to see it.
My guess is that it was a discharge ordinance sign you saw.
namedpipes
NES Member
Starting in Hampton Beach, follow 1a North. You'll find it in less than a day's relaxed drive. I don't care enough to go myself.
I related something I saw. I care very little about it. My interest in it at this moment is mainly amusement that you're so intent on proving your point (whatever it is).
If you choose not to believe that there is (or was) such a sign, suit yourself.
I'm going to go have my morning coffee now, and sit with the Mrs, mentioning this "dude" on NES that is wildly interested in a sign we saw on that road trip a few years ago.
Hey, if it helps, it was leaf peeping season, although that isn't why we were up there.
Here's another "story" for you. Somewhere in southern NH, over on the Vermontish side, there is a gas station with a surface tank decked out like a pig. it's the cutest frigging thing. That I think I do have a picture of?! I'll go look. Can anyone confirm my story on that?
namedpipes
NES Member
Found it!
namedpipes
NES Member
And here it is on google maps. So cute. They blurred the pigs face!
Google Maps
I didn't realize the was so far north. Pretty sure it was the same trip, so that town (sorry to touch on a sensitive subject) might be further north than I remember, too, but it was definitely less than a day's drive along the coast.
Google Maps
I didn't realize the was so far north. Pretty sure it was the same trip, so that town (sorry to touch on a sensitive subject) might be further north than I remember, too, but it was definitely less than a day's drive along the coast.
Based on how most of them react whenever there is a real or perceived panic, you can bet it will be a damn sight more than 50 bucks if they have you by the shorts.
I bet the grabbers know it too based on how fast they see us eat our own when things get tough.
The 1994 gun ban caused a backlash and people started buying a lot more guns in general. After the ban ended people bought a lot more AR15s. So how did that work out for the antis? And I think a UBC would cause an increase in the number of illegally manufactured homemade firearms, and the quality of those guns would get better. If antis keep stirring the bees nest with a stick they'll end up with a bigger problem than they started with.
namedpipes
NES Member
Given how ridiculously easy it is to make a firearm, it's a safe bet that in any non urban area there are FAR more guns than are known to the government.
There was a documentary on villagers in the Philippines or some such, making counterfeit 1911's and AK's BY HAND that were virtually identical to (and as good as) those made in good old USA factories.
Found it...
It’s already on fire. Has been for quite some time.
You brought it up back a couple of pages ago mildly disputing my statement that Maine essentially doesn't have any gun control laws beyond federal. No problem. I'm telling facts and you're giving us nothing but your word that you saw some sign somewhere. Until I see a picture of this sign or I see someone point me to a published town ordinance that backs up what you're saying, I'm saying you are mis-remembering this "sign".
I'm not trying to prove anything because I can't prove a negative.
And yes, I'm "wildly interested" because if I find evidence of this sign, it is against our State Constitution and I will let loose the hounds of Gun Owners of Maine on that town.
I don't see the question as simple as the OP stated. We already have a huge mass of confusing laws surrounding firearms and the context of the question isn't clearly laid out. Are we assuming the current states of both Fed and State laws? Are we assuming future changes? And what level of details are you considering.
Let's start with, is there anyone that should not have access to firearm. I would say yes. The mentally ill and dangerous, and those who have shown though their violent actions that they can not be trusted with a firearm.
Now you can say "2a" or if your not locked up you should be able to have a gun. And there is some logic in this. But historically we have never permanently confined everyone who should not have a gun. Way back, in the days surrounding the creation of our Constitution, communities were smaller and people more reasonable, and everyone knew who the local crazies and violent people were, and they just didn't give them guns. We didn't need laws to do this, this is not the situation today, and this difference is key.
So the days of self regulation are gone and we have to come up with laws that objectively account for ever situation, this is fundamentally impossible since exact situations are infinite, so the laws will be flawed and we need to hope and try to do the best we can.
So for the sake of discussion lets say there are people that should not have guns. How do we define them. You can say we just keep them locked up but that just shifts the discussion to what is the criteria for keeping people locked up so they can't get a gun. You can think of it either way, but we still need to define the criteria. These are mine;
1. Those properly adjudicated a danger to the community due to mental illness. This requires a process, with expert witnesses, and most importantly, the individual being allowed a defence.
2. Those that through their own actions show that they are a danger to the community. The easiest way to define this would be those who have been convicted of a significant violent act, or multiple lesser acts of violence. Perhaps for lesser acts it's just X number years PP, but after repeated or significant acts it is permanent PP.
Now you may say these people should just be locked up. I just don't see it as practical to lock up everyone who is convicted of A&B when it may have been a isolated incident. Instead a year with no guns to see if this is a start of a pattern or not. The term or permanent MUST be clearly laid out in the law, no discretion, everyone knows the consequences.
Before I go further lets address the "they will just get guns illegally", this is obviously true. But as an argument against a law it just isn't absolute, unless your position is that all laws and government should be abolished. Because, after all, none of the laws stop anyone from breaking them, and neither government or law can exist without the other. Laws establish lines of what is legally right and what is legally wrong, and provides deturents and punishments. And it's a fine line as to whether a law is helpful or hurtful, but that's another discussion. Back to the assumptions that laws have meaning.
So we have our criteria. And we live in a modern age where nobody knows everyone. So the local gun shop can't say "Hi crazy Joe from Eastnowhere, no I won't sell you a gun, because you are crazy" Instead, they need a tool to make sure the person doesn't fit #1 or #2. Now this could be called many things, but it is essentially a background check similar to what is required for a new gun sale.
Now I can see a system where this can be done for both private and commercial sales, can be done without creatings a list of gun ownership, without exposing this information to the general public. It wouldn't be perfect, nothing ever is. But it would require such an overhaul of laws and attitudes (both sides), that I doubt it could ever happen.
Let the flaming begin.
And for those that say "2a, any restriction is infringement, no exceptions" let's be clear, you are OK with the dangerously mentally ill having guns, and those who have repeatedly been convicted of serious violent crimes should have legal access to guns. Don't be a hypocrite, come out and say it.
Let's start with, is there anyone that should not have access to firearm. I would say yes. The mentally ill and dangerous, and those who have shown though their violent actions that they can not be trusted with a firearm.
Now you can say "2a" or if your not locked up you should be able to have a gun. And there is some logic in this. But historically we have never permanently confined everyone who should not have a gun. Way back, in the days surrounding the creation of our Constitution, communities were smaller and people more reasonable, and everyone knew who the local crazies and violent people were, and they just didn't give them guns. We didn't need laws to do this, this is not the situation today, and this difference is key.
So the days of self regulation are gone and we have to come up with laws that objectively account for ever situation, this is fundamentally impossible since exact situations are infinite, so the laws will be flawed and we need to hope and try to do the best we can.
So for the sake of discussion lets say there are people that should not have guns. How do we define them. You can say we just keep them locked up but that just shifts the discussion to what is the criteria for keeping people locked up so they can't get a gun. You can think of it either way, but we still need to define the criteria. These are mine;
1. Those properly adjudicated a danger to the community due to mental illness. This requires a process, with expert witnesses, and most importantly, the individual being allowed a defence.
2. Those that through their own actions show that they are a danger to the community. The easiest way to define this would be those who have been convicted of a significant violent act, or multiple lesser acts of violence. Perhaps for lesser acts it's just X number years PP, but after repeated or significant acts it is permanent PP.
Now you may say these people should just be locked up. I just don't see it as practical to lock up everyone who is convicted of A&B when it may have been a isolated incident. Instead a year with no guns to see if this is a start of a pattern or not. The term or permanent MUST be clearly laid out in the law, no discretion, everyone knows the consequences.
Before I go further lets address the "they will just get guns illegally", this is obviously true. But as an argument against a law it just isn't absolute, unless your position is that all laws and government should be abolished. Because, after all, none of the laws stop anyone from breaking them, and neither government or law can exist without the other. Laws establish lines of what is legally right and what is legally wrong, and provides deturents and punishments. And it's a fine line as to whether a law is helpful or hurtful, but that's another discussion. Back to the assumptions that laws have meaning.
So we have our criteria. And we live in a modern age where nobody knows everyone. So the local gun shop can't say "Hi crazy Joe from Eastnowhere, no I won't sell you a gun, because you are crazy" Instead, they need a tool to make sure the person doesn't fit #1 or #2. Now this could be called many things, but it is essentially a background check similar to what is required for a new gun sale.
Now I can see a system where this can be done for both private and commercial sales, can be done without creatings a list of gun ownership, without exposing this information to the general public. It wouldn't be perfect, nothing ever is. But it would require such an overhaul of laws and attitudes (both sides), that I doubt it could ever happen.
Let the flaming begin.
And for those that say "2a, any restriction is infringement, no exceptions" let's be clear, you are OK with the dangerously mentally ill having guns, and those who have repeatedly been convicted of serious violent crimes should have legal access to guns. Don't be a hypocrite, come out and say it.
Seems simple enough, the dangerously mentally ill and those who have repeatedly been convicted of serious violent crimes should be locked up.
I disagree.
A system where NICS-style background checks could be opened up to give private sellers the option to get a NICS receipt before a sale wouldn't be difficult -- but I doubt it will ever happen, because there's too many on the other side who won't accept a solution which doesn't enable creating a list of gun ownership.
You're right.
This is what I was thinking.
The database contains everyone legally in the US (if you think you're not already on a gov list you're just fooling yourself).
A web interface
Everyone gets a logon with multi-factor identification
When someone wants to buy a gun, the buyer logs on and shows the resulting indicator to the seller. Red=No Green=yes, nothing more. If it's red the buyer can privately logon to see the reason and appeal the decision.
On the back end, the system checks the identified person against whatever DB system is created for this. When a green is indicated it's display only with no DB record created.
Since anyone can access their own record anytime, with or without an actual sale pending, it's use does not directly indicate a sale. And since no information on any firearm, or the number of firearms is ever entered, it does not provide a list of firearms ownership.
Access to checks is always under the control of the individual.
As I said, this would require some serious changes to the laws.
And like the development of any tech system, it's a process that includes finding and fixing the flaws (you and I both know how that works). Lately I've been able to see how LE accesses records/systems, it's not as high-tech as I would have expected a couple years ago. It's not nearly as cool as TV and movies portray it.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Universal Background Checks would pass in a heartbeat if the Democrats didn’t *always* add Poison Pill amendments like “Assault Weapons Bans”, high-capacity magazine bans, 10-day waiting periods, ammunition NICS Checks, huge tax increases on guns and ammo, etc. They just can’t help torpedoing their own bills.
Personally I am against background checks or any new restrictions because if background checks are put in place when there is another shooting they will look to ban something else. Don’t you understand how this works by now?
namedpipes
NES Member
You can believe the sky is purple, with yellow polka dots if you like, too.
That's not how rules of evidence work lol
smokey-seven
NES Member
Only FFL's can do background checks. That eliminates any private sales entirely unless the Feds open up NICS to private citizens.
When someone talks about gun laws, I make a simple statement that cars and drivers licenses should be the same laws as guns and gun licenses. Same fees, same time restraints and same similarities for sale. Let's see how long people can live with the government holding up their driver license renewal for a couple months. If I can sell my car privately, why not a gun?
fshalor
NES Member
My favorite: "less than 3% of failed background checks are investigated"
Why would you be willing to pay money to expand a program in any way which is not properly managed?
I asked a lib the other day if they would keep buying things from Amazon if only 3% of the products they purchased arrived at their house.
We don't specifically know if background checks do work. Part of that unknown is the lack of data following up on the fails already in the system.
We do not know how many crimes the existing process stopped.
It is hard to say whether they work. Just as it is hard to properly calculate DGUs for accurate reporting of how many lives guns save every year in the hands of citizens.
Making farting in public illegal will not stop people from farting in public. Spending a few billion dollars requiring more background checks without any data supporting them (since failures aren't investigated) is like stopping farts without that underware stuff which deoderizes farts being invented.
Need that data to have any opinion other than... 3% isn't even an F.
Why would you be willing to pay money to expand a program in any way which is not properly managed?
I asked a lib the other day if they would keep buying things from Amazon if only 3% of the products they purchased arrived at their house.
We don't specifically know if background checks do work. Part of that unknown is the lack of data following up on the fails already in the system.
We do not know how many crimes the existing process stopped.
It is hard to say whether they work. Just as it is hard to properly calculate DGUs for accurate reporting of how many lives guns save every year in the hands of citizens.
Making farting in public illegal will not stop people from farting in public. Spending a few billion dollars requiring more background checks without any data supporting them (since failures aren't investigated) is like stopping farts without that underware stuff which deoderizes farts being invented.
Need that data to have any opinion other than... 3% isn't even an F.
namedpipes
NES Member
Here is one such sign on Google's street view. I don't recall if it's the same town, the same sign or even if it is the same or similar wording. It's rather vague.
Google Maps
I've seen signs near york/wells/ogunquit braying about hunting or discharging firearms but that's about it. Nothing about "report yourself to the kopsch" but admittedly its been a couple years since i went up there.
That's Saco, Maine, and appears to be strictly related to discharging firearms (or blanks) in city limits, that kind of restriction is specifically allowed under Maine's state preemption law.
Similar threads
