Waiting periods

1715 Views 99 Replies 45 Participants Last post by Mountain Mike, 3 d ago

DaddyO66

Discussion Starter · 18 d ago

I live in a state (Colorado)that is in the process of passing a 3 day wait period to purchase a firearm.
This has nothing to do with safety. As many of us can attest to, many firearm purchases are spur of the moment, emotional buys. If Amazon had a 3 day waiting period Bezos would be living under a bridge.
If gunbroker had a breathalyzer on their app I would be richer.
Again and again how do our "leaders" miss the point that it's not the lawful, legitimate enthusiasts that a f#$k things up?

Reactions: 5

61 - 80 of 100 Posts

Robert70

· #61 · 15 d ago

maddmatter1970 said:
Waiting periods are of the same value as covid masks. Worthless devices dreamt up by power drunk people who lawlessly take a portion of your income for what they view as protection money.
If all of my weapons fail at once, and I need a gun...destiny says my ticket is punched.
Last few weapons I have bought, I ordered from Davidsons. A "self induced," waiting period?
All that said,
It is a stupid idea. And plainly an infringement. It really cannot be defined any other way. Same as the masks.
Some may be comfortable with the taste of shoe leather...
I would rather skip the bootlicking.

Bro, you've gotten So Harcore in yer old age! 🍻

🤣

Reactions: 3

MJB4450

· #62 · 15 d ago

Single Six Shooter said:
That should not be a problem. Can't wait three days?

The folks who saw mobs coming down the streets during the L.A. riots in the 1990s certainly couldn't wait. They had their businesses burned down when they left the gun shops with a receipt instead of a gun.

Reactions: 4

Nomadic Paladin

· #63 · 14 d ago

It's not about whether 3 days is reasonable or 10 days is reasonable or if 30 days is reasonable. Telling me I have to wait for something I want is unreasonable period (not counting ordering a non-stock item). When I buy a car, I don't wait three days. The reality is that cool down laws don't accomplish anything, but they make it harder to buy something given to me as a right. Why should I have to drive 45 minutes to the store twice?

Personally, I can wait the three or ten or thirty days if I have to. I just don't want to.

Reactions: 2

Redhawk100

· #64 · 13 d ago

maddmatter1970 said:
Some may be comfortable with the taste of shoe leather...
I would rather skip the bootlicking.

Some enjoy the opportunity for praise from their masters behind the desks when they signal their virtue by licking the boot. And that's about 50% of the country it seems.

And if just shutting up and licking the boot isn't good enough for some of that 50%, then reporting people or joining a mob to enforce compliance is what makes them feel special.

Reactions: 1

MJB4450

· #65 · 13 d ago

Some comments offend me. I think we should have a 3 day waiting period before posting so that the government can ascertain if someone is worthy or not to make a comment in public. After all, if a 3 day waiting period is good enough for one Constitutional Right, it should be good enough for all of them.

Reactions: 3

Redhawk100

· #66 · 13 d ago

MJB4450 said:
Some comments offend me. I think we should have a 3 day waiting period before posting so that the government can ascertain if someone is worthy or not to make a comment in public. After all, if a 3 day waiting period is good enough for one Constitutional Right, it should be good enough for all of them.

Good point. Mandate that Twitter and Fakebook must put comments in a three-day hold after they're typed so that people can "cool off," and after three days, they have to log back in to actually post them. I would just love to see the reaction to such a mandate.

Oh, and while they're at it, how about a three-day waiting period to cast a vote. Filled ballots would go into holding when submitted on election day, and after that three-day period, voters have to go back to actually submit those filled ballots.

Reactions: 2

Tacky

· #67 · 13 d ago

My waiting period is self imposed sort of, it's the amount of days I need to squirrel away enough funds to buy what i want. 🤣 🤣

Sometimes this can be a several month waiting period.

Reactions: 5

Nomadic Paladin

· #68 · 13 d ago

Redhawk100 said:
Good point. Mandate that Twitter and Fakebook must put comments in a three-day hold after they're typed so that people can "cool off," and after three days, they have to log back in to actually post them. I would just love to see the reaction to such a mandate.

Oh, and while they're at it, how about a three-day waiting period to cast a vote. Filled ballots would go into holding when submitted on election day, and after that three-day period, voters have to go back to actually submit those filled ballots.

The thing is; those recommendations all make sense. As Herm Edwards has always said; write anything you want to right, but don't press send!"

Reactions: 1

Redhawk100

· #69 · 13 d ago

Nomadic Paladin said:
The thing is; those recommendations all make sense. As Herm Edwards has always said; write anything you want to right, but don't press send!"

Well, there is some sense to reflecting on anything we write before pressing send or post, but a government mandate thereof would not be sensible.

Reactions: 1

TestEngineer

· #70 · 13 d ago

How about a waiting period and a background check before being allowed to cross the border into our country 🤔

Reactions: 5

MJB4450

· #71 · 13 d ago

TestEngineer said:
How about a waiting period and a background check before being allowed to cross the border into our country 🤔

How about a border patrol and national guard that doesn't open gates in the "wall" and waive them in? Having border guards actually guard the border is a good place to start. Not much sense in having a wall if you're going to follow illegal orders contrary to your Oath and open the gates.

Reactions: 3

Redhawk100

· #72 · 13 d ago

MJB4450 said:
How about a border patrol and national guard that doesn't open gates in the "wall" and waive them in? Having border guards actually guard the border is a good place to start. Not much sense in having a wall if you're going to follow illegal orders contrary to your Oath and open the gates.

This raises another series of questions, which, of course, are rhetorical in nature:

If a police officer opened a locked and secured city, state or federal office for the purpose of allowing looters to ransack the place, would he not be charged as an accomplice to the crime?

If Border Patrol agents open a border gate to facilitate the the illegal entry of foreigners into the country, should they not be charged as accomplices to the crime of illegal entry?

If Capitol Police officers open the doors to the Capitol building to allow entry to protesters who would later be charged with various crimes for the entry they was later deemed to have been illegal, should those officers not all be charged as accomplices to the illegal activities that took place in the Capitol building?

I'm seeing some inconsistencies here in the application of accomplice liability doctrine.

Reactions: 4

MJB4450

· #73 · 13 d ago

Redhawk100 said:
If Border Patrol agents open a border gate to facilitate the the illegal entry of foreigners into the country, should they not be charged as accomplices to the crime of illegal entry?

Exactly. The border states are arresting and charging, and rightly so, people who transport 5 or 6 illegals in their cars and confiscate the cars too. Border Patrol transports by the tour bus loads. Then even gives them a welcome packet with a phone and money and bus or airline tickets to travel further. No difference but in degree and that one claims color of authority, but how many federal laws are violated? So is that authority valid?

Reactions: 1

Redhawk100

· #74 · 13 d ago

MJB4450 said:
Exactly. The border states are arresting and charging, and rightly so, people who transport 5 or 6 illegals in their cars and confiscate the cars too. Border Patrol transports by the tour bus loads. Then even gives them a welcome packet with a phone and money and bus or airline tickets to travel further. No difference but in degree and that one claims color of authority, but how many federal laws are violated? So is that authority valid?

Quite frankly, the conduct of this regime with regards to border enforcement calls into question the validity of any federal law. When the regime decides, by fiat, what laws are to be enforced or not enforced, then the legitimacy of the entire system of laws ceases to exist. All that takes its place is a flavor-of-the-month system of gunpoint intimidation of political targets and sources of financial penalty revenue.

It is the beginning of a society's downfall. Great job, Brandon and Brandon voters! You've all done the Devil's work bringing about a world in which Mad Max is a genuine documentary of what's to come.

Reactions: 4

jj63

· #75 · 12 d ago

If you pass an FBI check, what the hell. What else is there? Once your info is checked out ok, there is no need for an additional waiting period, unless they are waiting for the buyer to screw up. Fat chance!

Reactions: 3

Robert70

· #76 · 11 d ago

Redhawk100 said:
This raises another series of questions, which, of course, are rhetorical in nature:

If a police officer opened a locked and secured city, state or federal office for the purpose of allowing looters to ransack the place, would he not be charged as an accomplice to the crime?

If Border Patrol agents open a border gate to facilitate the the illegal entry of foreigners into the country, should they not be charged as accomplices to the crime of illegal entry?

If Capitol Police officers open the doors to the Capitol building to allow entry to protesters who would later be charged with various crimes for the entry they was later deemed to have been illegal, should those officers not all be charged as accomplices to the illegal activities that took place in the Capitol building?

I'm seeing some inconsistencies here in the application of accomplice liability doctrine.

To begin with waiting periods. These are arbitrary and have no basis in 'settled law'. Lawyers for the Feds' and or states use 'wordsmith tactics' (think Textualists). That fuss over the wording itself rather than the 'intent' of the law as written.
Now, I'll make a comment on actual 'Law' and how It's used and abused to justify 'wrongdoing'. A lawful order is one that follows the written law as intended by the framers of the constitution. This is an 'Originalist' view of the law. Even back when the framers wrote the Constitution, The Declaration of Independance & The Bill of Rights, the intention was very clear. Even with the establishment of the US Supreme Court, from the very beginning there were those who had a 'different' view of 'intent'. This is why we've seen such radical swings in our highest court(s).
I agree that following an 'Unlawful Order' place the person(s) following such in legal jeopardy. Unfortunately, as has been the case, those at the top of the 'Authority' seldom if ever are punished. The Old saying. Crap rolls downhill, is and always in play. And so it is today.

See less See more

Reactions: 4

Tacky

· #77 · 11 d ago

Robert70 said:
To begin with waiting periods. These are arbitrary and have no basis in 'settled law'. Lawyers for the Feds' and or states use 'wordsmith tactics' (think Textualists). That fuss over the wording itself rather than the 'intent' of the law as written.
Now, I'll make a comment on actual 'Law' and how It's used and abused to justify 'wrongdoing'. A lawful order is one that follows the written law as intended by the framers of the constitution. This is an 'Originalist' view of the law. Even back when the framers wrote the Constitution, The Declaration of Independance & The Bill of Rights, the intention was very clear. Even with the establishment of the US Supreme Court, from the very beginning there were those who had a 'different' view of 'intent'. This is why we've seen such radical swings in our highest court(s).
I agree that following an 'Unlawful Order' place the person(s) following such in legal jeopardy. Unfortunately, as has been the case, those at the top of the 'Authority' seldom if ever are punished. The Old saying. Crap rolls downhill, is and always in play. And so it is today.

Well said. 😉

Reactions: 3

jayhdavis

· #78 · 11 d ago

I know for a fact waiting periods don't work. Knew a woman who had to wait to pick up her handgun. Then a few days after she took possession, she drove down to her husband's place of business and shot him in the head while they were sitting in his car in the parking lot. She then calmly drove back home, ditching the pistol somewhere along I-95.

Reactions: 4

Nomadic Paladin

· #79 · 11 d ago

jayhdavis said:
I know for a fact waiting periods don't work. Knew a woman who had to wait to pick up her handgun. Then a few days after she took possession, she drove down to her husband's place of business and shot him in the head while they were sitting in his car in the parking lot. She then calmly drove back home, ditching the pistol somewhere along I-95.

Not that I disagree with your statement of waiting periods not working, but that is not a strong argument. Your story tells us they didn't work once. If they worked at all, you would never hear about it. You can't prove the negative when it didn't happen. Sorry, I just don't like to see weak arguments that can be picked apart.

A better argument is one that has been proposed here many times. If you already have access to a gun, the waiting period is moot. Or how about this one; if you are willing to break the law about shooting people, you are probably willing to break the law about how you acquire the gun to do so.

Reactions: 5

Tacky

· #80 · 11 d ago

Nomadic Paladin said:
Not that I disagree with your statement of waiting periods not working, but that is not a strong argument. Your story tells us they didn't work once. If they worked at all, you would never hear about it. You can't prove the negative when it didn't happen. Sorry, I just don't like to see weak arguments that can be picked apart.

A better argument is one that has been proposed here many times. If you already have access to a gun, the waiting period is moot. Or how about this one; if you are willing to break the law about shooting people, you are probably willing to break the law about how you acquire the gun to do so.

Good points...well said.

My thing I've seen for years is suicide. A very sad occurence. People that are serious we go to get with a black bag. The ones that call in and say they are going to do it,99% of the time never do. My point if they are determined, they won't be stopped no matter what outside rules or influences are. However results are opposite if they aren't determined. Just what I've seen for a couple decades in emergency services. However people are getting far crazier now days, to the point firefighters have to wear body armor, which is sad, but I do it everyday on duty I work.

I feel the background check is more of a deterrent than any waiting period ever was.

Reactions: 2

61 - 80 of 100 Posts