Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Proposals

What is the problem with background checks other than the slippery slope argument? What do you folks propose be done to try to weed out people who shouldn't have access to firearms; especially the emotionally disturbed?
 
That's kind of the point, there is no solution. I know people think if they throw enough crap at it something will stick, but there's simply no solution short of destroying every gun in private hands in the country.

Crazy people pass psych evals, criminals AND the crazies can simply buy from other criminals and bypass any laws or checks implemented. Restricting my rights isn't going to change that. Background checks aren't going to catch a guy with no record or has never been on psych hold. All of the mass shootings of the last 10 years were by people who bought guns at gun stores... meaning they all had background checks. Didn't stop them did it?
 
carguychris said:
Going to a gun dealer and lying on a federal form may seem asinine to you or me, but if I imagine a mindset characterized by laziness, wishful thinking, and a general lack of understanding about the way society functions, I find it easy to understand why some people do it.
Click to expand...

Heck, why not give it a try? Out of 153,000 denials in 2010, the ATF investigated only 4,732. 509 of those people were innocent and wrongly denied. Out of those 4,732 cases, they just confiscated the firearm in 1,164 cases. They only prosecuted 62 cases. Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

So you've got something like a 99% chance of never getting caught and even if you do get investigated, the chances you can avoid prosecution just by giving the gun back are pretty high.

But hey, why not expand that same broken system that we don't even try to enforce now to every single private transfer of a firearm in America :rolleyes:
 
Not only does the ATF not prosecute the cases of felons lying on the form, there seem to be constant bureaucratic mistakes which result in convicts not being properly reported. No wonder convicts think it's ok to lie on the form. Odds are, they won't have any consequences.
 
Sorry, but that's a big hunk of "no." Take a look at the 4473. Sections 1-10 are a half-page identity-theft kit. That information is necessary for the NICS operators to make a (somewhat) clear identification of the buyer.

There's simply no way any of us should feel safe handing that information off to a stranger.
Click to expand...

Who says the seller has to be the one to gather and give the information to NICS? Seller cold provide buyer with the make, model and serial number for the gun and email address for confirmation; leave it to buyer to get approval. Seller would just be responsible for checking the buyer's driver's license.

I may not have thought of everything, and you might be able to poke a few more holes in my method, but I find it very hard to believe that ordinary people selling firearms would not be as capable as an FFL of obtaining a NICS background check before selling a firearm. Of course the NICS system would have to be set up for this. But, come on, this isn't rocket science; FFL's certainly aren't rocket scientists (for the most part); and if an 18 year old kid working for an FFL at a gun show can help a line of 50 buyers at a gun show fill out 4473's and conduct background checks, I think most normal folks over the age of 21 can figure it out.
 
Last edited:
^^^ The article is notably vague about the "officials" providing the information, but if true – wow! :eek:

The article does raise in important point, however. To temporarily set aside the disputes about how a UBC system would work or whether it's constitutional, I think it's FAR more fair to "close the gun show loophole" by enacting UBC's at gun shows rather than trying to crack down on unlicensed dealers, because the UBC rule would be very simple to enforce and would apply equally to everybody.

Trying to restrict gun show sales through the back door by redefining "engaging in the business" may be politically expedient, but it's difficult to make it work in practical terms because it's far more labor-intensive and it will invariably result in failed prosecution attempts, some of which will backfire politically.

Given the difficulty of making even a few prosecutions work, I think the underlying assumption is that a few high-profile busts will have a proverbial chilling effect that will result in a general decline in unlicensed gun-show dealing. However, I find this to be a BIG and potentially rash assumption.
 
Seller cold provide buyer with the make, model and serial number for the gun and email address for confirmation; leave it to buyer to get approval. Seller would just be responsible for checking the buyer's driver's license.
Click to expand...
If there was a better, less intrusive way of doing things than the NICS system we have, it would have been proposed by now. It hasn't.

It would be very hard to get support for an alternate system. It would be criticised for being less accurate and reliable than NICS, it would be opposed by gun-control advocates because it isn't the system they want, and more to the point, few legislators would vote for its funding.

If vetting buyers through a background check is an important factor for a seller, he can have the transfer done through an FFL.
 
... it would be opposed by gun-control advocates because it isn't the system they want, and more to the point, few legislators would vote for its funding.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% on this aspect. All I'm saying is that its possible to set up a background check so that sellers could get some kind of confirmation they aren't selling a gun to a someone who isn't lawfully permitted to have one, without having to go through an FFL.
 
I agree with you 100% on this aspect. All I'm saying is that its possible to set up a background check so that sellers could get some kind of confirmation they aren't selling a gun to a someone who isn't lawfully permitted to have one, without having to go through an FFL.
Click to expand...

That's what Tom Coburn's 2013 UBC looked like. The buyer would call NICS and be issued an approval number that was valid for 30 days - and then he could buy from anybody, with or without FFL.

I think it still had some serious flaws but it at least showed some original thinking on the issue. Of course, it never got a vote on the Senate floor even as Reid was demanding some form of UBCs must be passed and Schumer kicked Coburn out of the bipartisan post-Newtown foursome of Senators. So I doubt any bill even close to those lines is going anywhere.
 
To enforce a UBC system the serial number of the gun must be recorded. That is the hidden intent of all UBC proposals, to create a registry. As we all know, this will eventually be used against all gun owners.
 
What do you folks propose be done to try to weed out people who shouldn't have access to firearms; especially the emotionally disturbed?
Click to expand...

The world only allows for two kinds of action. Action after the crime, or some form of prior restraint, with the intent of preventing the crime from happening.

The problem with prior restraint (which is what gun control laws all are) is that it removes your right of free choice, and treats everyone as equally guilty.

The message sent is that we, the people, who have the sound judgment to ELECT our leaders, DO NOT have the sound judgment to be trusted with deadly force, unless our leaders specifically approve us, on an individual basis.

In the less enlightened past, they didn't care as much about who HAD or could get a gun, they cared about what one DID with the gun. And when they did something evil, we took the hit, and the suffering, as part of life, and did our best to remove the person who did it from society, permanently.

We don't do that very often today. I think we have more problems because of it.

Doctors do not remove cancer cells, put them in storage for years, and then, decide they are not cancer anymore and return them to the body!

To enforce a UBC system the serial number of the gun must be recorded.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. BUT a system that needs the serial# recorded are the only proposals that the anti guns people offer, and the only ones they will accept.

The UBC concept is laughably failure prone as far as the stated purpose is concerned (keeping us safe by preventing people who "shouldn't have guns" from getting them).

In some ways, it is akin to saying "we can stop people from being killed by drunk drivers, if we ban everyone who ever got a speeding ticket from owning a car!"

As far as preventing violence, the background check does not, and CAN NOT #1) affect anyone who already owns a gun
#2) affect anyone who has no criminal record
#3) affect anyone with a criminal record, if they do not use the legal channels for purchasing a firearm
#4) has proven not to be enforced where it already exists
#5) can be so poorly written as to criminalize common harmless acts
#6) several other things, and it really ticks me off, as well...:D

Example:
I've got a totally clean record. I held govt. top secret (and above) security clearances for decades. I have 50+ guns at home. Yet, I have to be "checked" and approved EVERY SINGLE TIME I buy a gun.

Example:
A UBC law passed, so poorly written that the act of a friend of 20+ years (who also has a spotless record, held clearances, and has a lot of guns already), handing me a gun to look at, in his living room, becomes a crime without both of us physically going to an FFL dealer, with the gun, and having the background check run on me. AND, it becomes another crime (felony IIRC) for me to hand him the gun BACK, without going to the dealer AGAIN, to have the check run on the gun's OWNER, before it can be returned to him.

This is more than just irksome. It is borderline stupid, and that's one of the nicest things I can say about it.
 
On the subject of guns, Ms. Clinton gave a speech today in which she claimed that negotiating with the NRA was like negotiating with the "Iranians or Communists."

(Bonus points for a former Secretary of State mispronouncing "Iranians.")

To the best of my knowledge, she's never negotiated with, or even spoken to, the NRA.

She's making two potentially costly mistakes. The first is assuming her cause is so inevitable that she can slander gun owners. Her husband's administration made the same mistake in 1993-1994.

The second is assuming all her supporters agree with her. They don't.

...but let's nobody tell her that. Let her push the extreme edge of the gun control debate.
 
She can slander gun owners.

The political divide on gun ownership has strengthened over the last several decades. They are an easy target, because they weren't going to vote for her in the first place.

Its like a Republican going after pro-abortion people. Strong Pro-abortion advocates weren't going to vote for him in the first place.
 
Negotiating with Iranians gave them a path to nuclear weapons. Maybe she will negotiate away all the gun laws?

She is trying to set up the issue to attack Bernie, according to some.
 
She is trying to set up the issue to attack Bernie, according to some.
Click to expand...
I'm all for that. In the meantime, her campaign alienates moderate voters and gun-owning Democrats.

It's getting harder for them to say, "we're not coming for your guns" with a straight face.
 
carguychris said:
Holders of state-issued photo-ID gun licenses are exempt from the NICS check requirement IF the state provides a free hotline to verify whether the license is legit.
Click to expand...
In Illinois you can easily check if a FOID is valid for free at the ISP web site. You just enter the FOID card number and the date of birth of the holder and it tells you if it's valid. No information about a gun is entered, or even if a transfer is made. I've checked my own just for kicks.

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/FOID/PersonToPersonFirearmTransfer.aspx

I wouldn't have an objection to a national system like Coburn proposed, so long as it was free to both buyers and sellers.

eta: There is no penalty in Illinois if you don't use the FOID verification system but if you do use it you are immune from any criminal or civil offenses from the sale of the gun. It's more carrot than stick.
 
"Negotiating with Iranians gave them a path to nuclear weapons. Maybe she will negotiate away all the gun laws?"

Hopefully not all our guns!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top