Posted on 05/16/2010 11:23:11 AM PDT by rellimpank
Juan Cardona-Marquez can't legally buy a gun. He can't shoot one. He can't even touch one without committing a crime.
So how was it that the 22-year-old Milwaukee man - who threatened his girlfriend and was later charged with armed robbery and a string of burglaries - was able to rent a .45-caliber Glock handgun from Badger Guns and practice his aim on the store's shooting range?
The answer lies in a little-known quirk of federal gun laws.
Gun stores must check the criminal background of anyone buying a gun. But no check is required if someone rents a gun to use on the store's shooting range. In fact, a background check is not even allowed for rentals.
Prosecutors say a felon or other person legally barred from having a gun is breaking the law by handling one and could be charged. But they need proof.
"They can go and play with a gun, handle it, fire it, even take pictures with it to intimidate other people and nobody is going to know about it," said Joseph J. Vince Jr., a retired supervisor from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"If they have the gun in the store or out of the store, it is a danger to the public."
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
You’re welcome! < Tip o’ the hat >
>I’ve been shooting for decades, so yes, I know they can’t legally leave the shooting range with the gun.
That goes for anyone; excepting the gun’s owner. / Wow, theft being a crime; who knew!
>But that leaves more opportunity for mischief than I think is necessary.
Oh come on; if someone is determined to kill someone [including themselves] it’s likely they’ll attempt it regardless of the legality with whatever happens to be around, be it anything from a rock to a gun to a car to a plane crashing into a building.
>What is the problem with telling a crazy person or felon you can’t rent a gun?
Because the label ‘crazy’ could be applied to anyone who is concerned for their rights; Lord knows that’s the undertone I read from my father when he asks why I like guns & am concerned about the right to keep and bear them.
Also, what about misdemeanors being ‘upgraded’ to a felony?
What about the mere allegation of ‘domestic violence’ being enough to abridge the right to keep and bear arms?
What about ex-felons, people who served their full sentence; shouldn’t they have FULL rights and privileges restored?
>Why are you so determined to vindicate the right of a crazy person or a felon to rent a gun?
Why are you so determined to strip that from people?
To all of those people on this thread who think that there should be stringent background checks at ranges let me tell you how it was to live in America before JFK got himself shot.
You could walk into any store that sold guns and buy one without a background check, you could(and my parents did)order a gun through the mail via Monkey Wards or Speigel Catalogs and receive them after a few weeks waiting for delivery. In fact I have in my possession two such firearms, one a .22 long rifle semi-auto and another .222 Remington bolt action rifle, both of which belonged to my mother and both of which were ordered via catalog and delivered by mail. Anyone who actually thinks background checks and gun laws prevents criminals from having firearms needs their heads examined. There was far fewer violent crime incidents in the 1950s than there are now and gangs didn’t go around sucker punching people either without fear of getting their a**es blown off.
>>> Renting firearms to anyone that walks in the door just seems like a recipe for trouble.
>>
>>So does letting just anyone that is born in this country just speak their mind. I mean, we should at least run them through a government check to see if they have badmouthed the government before allowing them to exercise their first amendment rights. Then we’ll issue them a Free Speech permit.
>
>Usually it’s liberals that draw stupid equivalencies between non-related things. Grats!
The relationship is that they are both rights specifically recognized in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
>My position is that from the standpoint of a gun shop owner, my liability is decreased if I am able to ascertain who is coming in the store to rent a gun for range use.
IMO, you have no culpability for the actions of others unless you were either coercing, encouraging, or otherwise aiding/abetting that action.
>Many ranges are organized by “clubs” who know who their members are. If I owned a range in an “urban” area, I would be disinclined from a cost/benefit standpoint to renting to whomever walked in off the street.
Isn’t that the point of the “We reserve the right to refuse service” signs?
“They also make you fill out a form where they ask you if you’ve been declared incompetent or convicted of a felony.”
IIRC, felons are not required to answer that truthfully because it violates their right against self-incrimination.
If the woman had been determined to be mentally incompetent, why was she running loose? Ditto the felon. If they’re too dangerous to be allowed to posess weapons (which are very easy to obtain), why are they released from prison?
I’m tired of the lowest-common-denominator approach being to treat everyone like a criminal suspect or a terrorist.
See my post number 85:)
Oops I mean see my post number 83:)
If a person is too insane or criminally inclined to be trusted with a gun then they should not be released. The beliefs you stated have no basis in the Constitution, only the bastardization of that document that has happened in the past 50-ish years. At best it would be a state issue under the 10th amendment.
So you are saying that background checks will stop suicides.
Pathetic you could believe that for even one second.
Govt is NOT the answer. Never is.
“If they’ve been Baker Acted, that is a pretty good sign. Or if they’ve been convicted of a felony.”
I’ll go with the Baker act but in some areas if you defend yourself or your family with a firearm you may be covicted of a felony.
Check out Post 62. There’s another NRA antigunner writing that one.
Free Republic probably has more NRA haters than DU.
You did not read my posts. Let them commit suicide. Just don’t do it around me.
“If the woman had been determined to be mentally incompetent, why was she running loose? Ditto the felon.”
I agree. They should be locked up. But they aren’t.
“Because the label ‘crazy’ could be applied to anyone who is concerned for their rights; Lord knows that’s the undertone I read from my father when he asks why I like guns & am concerned about the right to keep and bear them.”
We already have a law preventing them from buying a gun. Why should they be able to rent a gun if they can’t buy one?
We’ve got to keep the pressure on them. My biggest concern is that I fear we may end up with choices who are just as bad as they were in 08. I think Pence may be my preference at this point. But who knows if he’s even running?
My first gun was a Christmas gift, just how evil is that? fer crying out loud.
“If I ran a gun shop and wanted to rent guns, I would make rentals contingent upon joining a “club” wherein they are checked using whatever means necessary to insure they are legally allowed to own a gun.”
.
Your business would be cumbersome, and not profitable.
.
Personally, I don't think that's gonna fly......
What's the difference between the range providing him with the firearm, on their property, than him being my friend and I allow him to shoot it with me at my local outdoor range?
I think they're just grasping at straws........
“Why should they be able to rent a gun if they can’t buy one?”
Well, technically they can’t even hold a weapon, right?
So the question is not that they’re being “allowed” to rent one, it’s that there’s no quick way to verify someone’s status. What do you propose that wouldn’t gum it up for the rest of us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.