breitbart, a california paper with foreign ties, is conservative but definitely allows democrat news to be advertised within it:

Texas has NO background check for weapons bought at gun shows, neither does Virginia.

Also the original law allowing government to legally tamper with weapon sales was to allow FBI to obtain (serial numbers, specifications) for all weapons. The purpose was to allow the FBI cheaper means of solving crimes at their crime labs - meaning ballistics and lab reports would not always be required.

HOWEVER: FBI HAS RE-NEGGED ON THE DEAL UPPING THE PRICE - THEY DO BALLISTICS ON WEAPONS EVEN WHEN THE SERIAL IS KNOWN TO BE THAT OF THE SHOOTER AND THE AMMO MATCHES THE BORE: THE FBI STILL RUNS THE LAB AND CHARGES THE FEES. THE FBI RE-NEGGED ON THE LAW THEY SAID WOULD BE USED FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES OF AVOIDING EXPENSIVE LAB FEES (and longer investigation times).

The law would never have passed (that allows FBI to demand registration) if it had a rider saying "the government will decide who is crazy".

One good reason is because most citizens believe government workers are CRAZY with their money and shoot un-armed citizens too.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/03/report-midland-shooter-acquired-gun-privately-seller-may-face-charges/

What hasn't the FBI done?

Reported stolen weapons escalated in USA with more illegal aliens. The fact is many Hispanics report their weapons stolen (for denial if they use it, to allow them to sell it illegally, because spics love lying? or selling it over-seas?)

THE FBI HAS NOT ISSUED ANY LAW WHICH WOULD PENALIZE HISPANICS, REMOVE THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE A FIRE ARM, NOR INVESTIGATE UNTIL THE REPORTED STOLEN WEAPON WAS FOUND.

Why is it the FBI wants Democrats to decide who cannot have guns (white boys) and then it wants to NOT decide to do anything about spics reporting their guns stolen? Why also is the FBI not strict on prosecuting police officers who fire at un-armed citizens (to remove their license - as obviously they already broke the cowboy rule of not shooting an un-armed man which America so much loves)??

ANSWER? Tell us Mr. Comey. We're all ears on why these policies are strict only in one direction.

Comey doesn't love America. He loves federal salary too much.

Gun advocates fought to prevent FBI from using federal power to legally force weapon makers to print serial numbers on weapons and force gun owners to report which serial numbers they hold.

It was a Bill barely passed. It is considered a small limit of freedom so may not have required 3/4 majority to pass.

HOWEVER: a Bill preventing the sale of fire arms (to people that democrats name as crazy - but all republicans feel democrats ARE the ones who are crazy) would require a 3/4 majority because certainly it is a limitation of freedom: the right to protect one's self in a meaningful manner, the right to participate in sport, to participate in free trade.

There were laws passed that sale of fire arms to convicted felons was against the law. The law was not much disputed.

Democrats have not YET convicted everyone whole sale of felon to obtain leverage to control weapons sales. However they HAVE made most tort laws crimes and the idea they wouldn't do it: is just plain WRONG. "oh don't worry misdemeanor CRIMES usually bear little but financial penalty" "oh don't worry, we just made a law you can't get food if you've been a criminal" "oh don't worry, we just made a law anyone convicted of ANY crime can't buy a weapon". Don't worry that china is backing our campaign funds, that's none of your business.

.

Colorado already passed a law making any crime punishable (able, not ished) by one year in prison an AUTOMATIC FAIL ON WEAPONS PURCHASE.

Now, if you remember, many auto accidents qualify for that, most things that are correctly Tort in law have been converted to misdemeanor crime and most of those have a maximum of 1 yr imprisonment (assumed levied on those who continually break it, not on first judgement).

The Bill concedes that FOR A FEE a person who wishes to buy a weapon can dispute the status with the government (uh, fat chance and $$$$$ - corruption)

THAT DOES MEAN THAT MOST PEOPLE IN COLORADO HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BUY A WEAPON

THE SUPREME COURT NEVER REVIEWED THAT YET BUT SHOULD

Almost anything people believe is "non-criminal" you can be ticketed for these days, whether it's a traffic ticket or loitering or failing to mow your law: is criminal according to democrat laws and has written in state code a maximum jail sentence associated.

EVERYTHING IS A CRIME IN THE USA, INCLUDING BEING MR. TRUMP HIMSELF

The original law that passed DID NOT ALLOW background check to use Tort as a reason to not sell fire-arms.

The background didn't mean "if you've ever made a pizza": it meant checking a database to see if A JUDGE HAD ORDERED AS THE RESULT OF A VERDICT THE PERSON NEVER OWN A FIREARM: meaning, a man who did an armed robbery and got prison time for doing the armed robbery.

What the hell is NRA doing? NRA lawyers are seriously flunking. Any crime punish-ABLE by a maximum of 1 yr in prison?

NRA needs some new lawyers. Fire all of them.

.

the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994 DURING BILL CLINTON

republicans didn't much protest it because the law specifically did NOT say "background in general" it said "federal system of reporting judicial mandates associated with verdicts upon persons using a weapon in a convicted crime"

this is democrat "living constitution" bullshit

they believe the constitution and state law can be pissed upon, and that any "government writing" they do commenting on how they feel the law should be enforced is better than law and TO BE ENFORCED USING MILIIA at their disposal (police)

MUCH TO THEIR DISMAY - REPUBLICANS WANT THOSE GOVERNMENT WORKERS IN PRISON FOR BREAKING THE LAWS

Why do you reply to your own posts all the time?

Didn't the NRA tell us that private sales of firearms shouldn't require a mandatory background check?