Background Checks, Hi Cap Mags...

[maestro pistolero]

I would add to my post above by pointing out that while the average citizen may indeed be less likely to encounter violent criminals than a police officer, once he is actually confronted by the criminals, they are the same criminals, just as dangerous, and the tools to stop the threat (i.e. full capacity magazines) are just as essential to survival.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

He didn't fail, but he didn't pass either. Earlier reports said he failed.

Either way, there is nearly zero follow up to those who do fail.

The point of your previous post was that Lanza "failed" a background check and that nobody followed up on it -- implying that a background check was run, he was found to be a prohibited person trying to buy a gun, and that law enforcement then did nothing.

In fact, the article you linked pretty much got it right:

Sources said he entered the store “earlier in the week” in the Newtown area and inquired about buying one rifle. He was only 20 years old, and did not have a permit for firearms, and was told about a 14-day background check that would have to be done, the sources said.

“He didn’t want to wait the 14 days,” said one source, declining to be identified because the case is still under review. “So they denied him. The sale did not take place.”

Where the article is incorrect is where it said they "denied" him. In fact, there was no background check initiated and there was no denial. He was told that he would have to wait 14 days, and he didn't want to wait 14 days. No sale was entered into, and no background check was initiated. No laws were broken. It's not illegal to walk into a gun shop and ask, "Can I buy this gun?" If the answer is, "You're only 20 years old, you can buy it but you have to wait 14 days to take it home," and I thereupon decide I don't want to wait 14 days so I won't buy the gun -- that's the end of that story. There is no denial -- there is a gun shop and a customer mutually following the law.

 

[Tom Servo]

I would go to one of the gun shows that don't require a background check or simply buy off of armslist.

Those are both myths. A gun purchased from Armslist has to be transferred through an FFL. I have never heard a credible allegation of a gun being sent to an individual.

As has been mentioned, gun shows make up less than 2% of crime guns. More crime guns than that start as legally-purchased guns at FFL's.

If background checks were required (without a registry, naturally) and that was posted and advertised on every website, gun show and store that sells guns AND there was any easy way for us average Joe's to do it online, then I think that would be a deterrent to many people that may want to buy a gun for nefarious reasons.

No, it wouldn't. They will still get their guns through the existing black market. The only people affected are those who have no inclination to break the law in the first place.

As far as the government mandating and implementing an online background-check system...let's think that through.

Not to get off the subject, but has anyone looked at healthcare.gov? It's a disaster. Do we really want the same folks putting a publicly-available background-check system online? Not only would it be a mess, it would be a horrendous avenue for abuse and identity theft.

And for what? It still won't stop someone who's just going to bypass the system via straw purchase or the trunk of someone's car.

 

[JimmyR]

A gun purchased from Armslist has to be transferred through an FFL. I have never heard a credible allegation of a gun being sent to an individual.

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom. In the state of Indiana (and Kentucky, and others) a private face to face transaction can take place between individuals and no FFL is needed. No record of the sale is required.

If the gun is shipped (from out of state or otherwise), then you are right, it must be shipped via an FFL.

 

[Tinner666]

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom. In the state of Indiana (and Kentucky, and others) a private face to face transaction can take place between individuals and no FFL is needed. No record of the sale is required.

You still have to satisfy yourself that you personally aren't commiting a crime by selling to a felon. If it's a sting, you're really cooked. Are you or any legitimate gunowner going to take the chance? You must assure yourself about the legality of the sale. ID, CCW, FOID.
It might not be the same as the call through a FFL, but it's a check and balance.
If you're offered a pristine S&W 629 for $100.00, are you going to take the risk of buying stolen property? Are you going to call PD and tell them about the firearm and serial number? I would. If the seller suddenly shied off, I'd call PD with a description. I hate thieves and won't knowling buy from one and give them a market.
The system has checks and balances and penalties for ignoring htem.

 

[Tom Servo]

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom

Right you are. I was thinking about guns being shipped across state lines.

That said, I've yet to see any proof of Armslist being the haven for illegal gun purchases the antis claim.

 

[rwilson452]

PA is another state that allows FTF transfers, but only long guns. Pistols and such require an FFL to perform the transfer. Most people I know require the buyer to present a license to carry a firearm before the transfer. a LTCF is PA's version of a CCW permit. It's not needed but assures the seller they are allowed to own a gun.

 

[RX-79G]

I was just looking at the Federal regs today, and had forgotten that you can mail a long gun to someone in the same state to transfer ownership. No FTF or FFL required.

You could do it with a handgun, too, if you could find a way of sending it.

Of course, some states have more stringent requirements, but most don't. And the guidelines state that you can't sell a gun to someone you're aware can't own it, which is quite a bit shy of putting any onus on the seller to make sure the buyer is legal.