Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

How about the one in DC? It was ruled unconstitutional, and six or seven years later was overturned pending final "review."

There's more gray area here historically than you're willing to admit.

 

Location does matter

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/s...irearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

So no background check on private sales in Indiana, but background checks on all sales in Illinois but in Michigan, only if it is a handgun.

Tell me again how location doesn't matter?

 

LOL. I thought we were talking about Federal Law.

The location -- i.e. at a gun show vs. somewhere else -- is not what determines if a background check is required.

 

Jay clearly won't click on any links I post, so let's take one more stab at debunking the "gun show loophole" myth:

In reality, the so-called “gun show loophole” is a myth. It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.

If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines — from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer — the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state. Many states, including Oregon, Colorado, andIllinois, have enacted universal background checks in order to eliminate the exemption for same-state private firearms transactions.

Federal universal background checks may or may not be a wise idea — the U.S. Senate in 2013 explicitly refused to enact them — but referring to the federal exemption for private, same-state sales as a “gun show loophole” is misleading and factually inaccurate.

7 Gun Control Myths That Just Won't Die

There is nothing about a sale occurring at a gun show that exempts it from background checks, and you can't travel across state lines to purchase a gun at a gun show in order to avoid a background check.

 

The good people of Illinois travel to Indiana for their guns all the time.

 

Liberals don't understand gun laws, and aren't interested in learning:









You won't be shocked to learn that Sam Stein didn't accept the challenge, or even reply.

 

Here's what Stein wrote:

 

This is an honest question, YF: Do you think anything should be done to curb gun violence? Or are you like Dick Whitman and think this is simply "the deal we have made"? I've been following the back and forth on this thread and I get that you are a staunch defender of the rights given to us by the constitution. I appreciate that. But I also haven't seen you offer any possible solutions to gun violence (unless I missed it and if I did I apologize), only shoot down those who do because you claim they are unconstitutional.

 

For the record, I do think there are ways to continue to curb gun violence and, in particular, rampage massacres.

I do not think America is interested in doing so, however. This is the deal.

 

The Oregon shooter had previously attempted suicide. The U.S. Army knew this, but nothing was done to stop him from later purchasing firearms:

The alleged gunman who killed nine people and wounded nine others at a rural community college in Oregon last Thursday had been discharged from the Army after attempting to commit suicide, according to law-enforcement officials familiar with the case.

Christopher Harper-Mercer, who was 26 years old at the time of the shooting, was discharged from basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., after just one month in 2008.

The Army said it couldn’t confirm details of his discharge due to privacy regulations. But law-enforcement officials familiar with the investigation into last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg said the discharge occurred after Mr. Harper-Mercer tried to take his own life.

The details of the suicide attempt haven’t been made public. But it is the latest indication that Mr. Harper-Mercer—described by former friends and neighbors as a disaffected loner who loved firearms and disliked religion—had been deeply troubled long before opening fire on fellow students and a teacher in Oregon.

The Army discharge didn’t affect Mr. Harper-Mercer’s ability to legally purchase the weapons. He didn’t receive a dishonorable discharge, which would have required a court-martial, according to an Army spokesman. Because he didn’t have that type of discharge, often deemed equivalent to a felony, he wasn’t precluded from buying guns under federal law.

Alleged Oregon Shooter Discharged From Army After Suicide Attempt

 

Stop being mean to mentally ill people.

 

Unfortunately, I think you are right.